Say it ain't so Joe!!
To hear Microsoft tell it, work on Windows 8 wrapped in August and the final version of the new OS is already shipping to PC makers. But according to a source close to Intel, Redmond's closest hardware partner thinks the current Windows 8 code is still only half-baked. At a recent company meeting in Taipei, Taiwan, Intel CEO …
Say it ain't so Joe!!
I like that Microsoft removed the start menu. They spent billions on dollars on this thing and all they managed to do was to copy us.
It's the designers at Microsoft that are half-baked, really.
The rank and file at M$ are ok. I know a few and they are frustrated at management, or the lack of it. They know how to do their jobs and what is ready to ship, but marketing has to ship something for the holiday season, so just bag up what you have right now and we'll include 20 free updates to fix it later.
Ah, now I see the problem. Marketing has notoriously short memories. So, it would seem, do management. Perhaps I was wrong to rule out the Vista analogy.
I would qualify as one of Microsoft's "Preview participants", and I think Windows 8 sucks. I've tried each version and even the latest has a shockingly incomplete feel to it. I've used various utilities to bypass the Metro start screen and restore a Start menu to make it usable, but even still, it absolutely doesn't feel like a real product.
As the preview releases have been given away to anyone who wants them, it's really dangerous to look at the number of participants as an endorsement of the condition of the OS.
If you are bypassing changes then you are hardly a useful preview participant anyway.
If you are bypassing changes then you are hardly a useful preview participant anyway.
Ah yes. Shoot the messenger.
If the changes suck so much that even people invested in Microsoft enough to take part in the preview program are forced to find ways to work around them, that speaks to a pretty serious problem. Sticking your head in the sand and saying "you'll get used to it eventually" won't make it go away. It will only guarantee that Microsoft doesn't hear the legitimate complaints and drops a bigger turd than Vista.
As one of those one percenters (Linux desktop user) who uses Windows infrequently, and thus can stay on Windows 7 for nearly a decade if necessary as I did with XP, I sit back with my beer in hand and await the appointed meeting of shit and fan later this fall.
What message did he give us exactly? He said it "sucks" and that he worked around it. You are saying that just pretending it doesn't exist (sticking one's head in the sand if you will) and not actually explaining why it sucks is going to help things change for the better?
Oh and I use Linux too, were you planning on giving specfic examples of why it's better at a particular task or were you just looking for a FOSS high five?
Your logic could not be more flawed. The reason people are resorting to workarounds is because they allow them to work more efficently. Logic like yours is why companies get saddled with broken systems. Some middle management desk warmer believes that any criticism of their latest idea must instantly be deflected onto the source and never considered as remotely legitimate. Thinking like yours is why I worked in a lab that for 7 weeks was completely unable to order supplies, the new ordering system (which we initially welcomed in principal) was tied into our new 'sole (soul?) supplier' and their catalogue which was fine for ordering paper. However when most of what we needed had to be purchased from other companies via the SS acting as an intermediary, it all went to shit. When we pointed it out politely and suggested solutions we were advised we were just causing trouble because we wanted the old laborious system back. In reality we wanted the new system but for it to work.
I downloaded the preview and rc, I tried both for a week and found that it would make an awesome tablet os and a shocking desktop os. Laptops would be more of a mixed bag, dependant on what you do most, if you have a touch screen and the size (and distance from you) of the screen. It really just needs two modes, the old desktop for work and metro for play. Would it kill them to do it that way? Apple doesn't force the same ui on iphone the macpro users? They are lauded for their user experience. Time to grab a few win 7 licences just in case. I wouldn't bother with workarounds, I'll just not use it. I've been considering a switch to apple, especially with the mbp retina, ms seem to be pushing me away.
Strip away the desktop/metro/wtf interface, and for the most part Windows 8 seems just fine. Windows 8 just works as long as you don't use the Metro interface on a desktop computer, but that's just the point, Windows home/pro users use the GUI to open apps and get their work done. Metro is a huge, confusing change to everyone that's learned to use windows from '95 on. It appears to change entire paradigm of how we interact with the (windows) computer.
I get it, menus aren't so great on touch devices, but don't treat my desktop like a fucking iPad. When my computer boots up and is ready to use I want just the few icons I normally use there. Pinning stuff to the start bar, I love it, the programs I used most are there. A few more on my desktop, along with a few data files that are works in progress. The rest is hidden away in the start menu where I may access it just a few times a year.
So, why the hell did Microsoft change their desktop to compete with a tablet operating system? Even with the power of the entrenched yet weakening grip of Microsoft on the desktop, this stands to push users and developers on to cloud (private or public) based apps that run from browsers. Browsers that don't have to be Internet Explorer or run on Windows. Do they feel so much of the future is at stake that the risk of W8 driving customers to other products is better then no decent showing in the tablet market?
"Your logic could not be more flawed. The reason people are resorting to workarounds is because they allow them to work more efficently."
No. People are resorting to workarounds because they are generally hesitant to changes. This is the same reason why many users cling to the old, bland and primitive Win95 start menue, or with every new Windows version claim the previous version was the best one ever (except for Vista which due to FUD spread by some wanna-by scientist and the press has cemented its image as wrst-ever Windows no matter what).
BTW: using workarounds during a beta program doesn't make a useful tester.
Nice! I pretty much agree with the the guy you're attacking.
I am a software developer in the business for many years with major projects under Linux, Windows, Mac OSX, Symbian and others under my belt. A comment like "It sucks, I worked around it" is just a waste of time unless you provide specific details as to how the developers could have made the new experience more suitable.
I personally got myself a Samsung Series 7 Slate for Christmas last year and have been in love with Metro on it. So much so, that when I am on a Windows 7 machine I feel like I'm missing SOoo much. The start screen is actually quite great once you get used to it and give it a chance. If I were to make a so for comment about it, I'd have left a start icon on the screen to make finding the start screen by mouse a bit easier. Other than that, I can safely say that the new UI has in fact increased my productivity as a Windows and Linux developer as well as as a networking engineer.
The real issue is change and frankly, Microsoft needed a Steve Jobs and not a Steve Ballmer to sell it. It's impossible not to hate everything that comes out of Ballmers mouth.
Maybe, but not as a useful one. It also seems you don't quite get what a beta program is for and why using workarounds at this stage makes you worthless as a tester or contributor. At the end of the day, it's very obvious that all you did was trying to make Win8 to look like Win7, wich is doomed to fail (if you want a Win 7 lookalike then stay with Wind 7. Simples).
I also have been with WIndows 9 since the very early previews, but unlike you I have somewhat forced myself to actually use Metro (which at the end of the day is nothing but a large start menu) and actually tried to understand the way all this new stuff works, and after a very short period (a few hours) the new interface started to actually make sense, and I could see many of the improvements that I now miss when using a Windows 7, Vista or XP computer.
I pretty much agree with nothing you said.
"I also have been with WIndows 9 since the very early previews,"
Windows 9 eh? Impressive. Any chance I could borrow the DeLorean so that I can go back about 15 years and purchase some stocks? :P
I did say why it sucks - I said it feels shockingly incomplete, which it does. And what hope would any of us "Preview Participants" have that our feedback would be valued when despite countless accounts of usability issues, Microsoft has done nothing but march forward, release after release.
And I did try to get used to the Metro interface. I installed it without modification on a system used by the entire family, and it was only after several months of daily use and continuous frustration and complaints by family members did I work around Metro. We all learned how to use Metro, so this isn't an issue of not understanding the new paradigm, it's an issue of the new paradigm just sucking in real-world use.
We're not sticking out heads in the sand, we've been explaining exactly why Metro sucks on a desktop system, and Microsoft's reaction has been clear - tough luck, get used to it. So with Windows 8 now RTM, it's pointless to elaborate beyond simply saying it sucks.
If anyone is burring their head in the sand, it's the pro-Metro folks who have done nothing but ignore scores of specific and detailed feedback.
We all gave feedback as to the issue. The interface is best suited to a touch screen environment and for people who primarily want quick access to a relatively small number of applications and who would benefit from 'at a glance' previews of social media \ email. That is not everyone. There is also a group for whom their phone and tablet already do this therefore they take a hit for no gain.
Just because some folks are resistant to change doesn't mean all criticism is invalid. Metro is great, just not for everyone in all circumstances. I really don't see the issue in allowing people to just use a standard desktop & start menu if they wish? I'm not trying to deprive anyone of metro, I just find that for work, I am quicker on the older gui.
Wow, I never thought suggesting someone may not wish to exclude the major component of a new OS when previewing/evaluating it would result in such "passionate replies". Ok, let me give it a shot
"Your logic could not be more flawed. The reason people are resorting to workarounds is because they allow them to work more efficiently"
If efficiency is important then why are you using a potentially sub-optimal preview system in the first place and leaving yourself open to potential driver issues and other bugs? It's an evaluation for a reason and shouldn't be used on important production systems.
"Thinking like yours is why I worked in a lab that for 7 weeks was completely unable to order supplies" [...] "When we pointed it out politely and suggested solutions we were advised we were just causing trouble because we wanted the old laborious system back."
Then I suggest your lab not install preview software as that is what I was referring to.
"Just because some folks are resistant to change doesn't mean all criticism is invalid. Metro is great, just not for everyone in all circumstances."
I very much agree with both of those statements.
Valid arguments, thank you. I'm interested what issues there are with removing the apps and just pinning the icons to the start screen to use like a desktop? As soon as you launch a native app it kicks you into the desktop anyway. From my evaluation of Windows 8 I hardly ever get kicked back to Metro apart from when I want to be, granted this can be quite often due to needing the Windows + Q app list.
You started to make sense in your reply to my other post but then you reverted to your "it sucks" mentality by accusing me of being paid by Microsoft. You may wish to refrain from such blatant attempts to deflect debate.
Of course they don't like change. Especially when those changes are forced on them and cause them to have to adopt a procedure that decreases the efficiency of what they want to do. That's the point.
TIFKAM is a touch device menu and little more, so if the user isn't actually using a touch device, then the question is whether the menu is useful. If it isn't, then you get workarounds. That's one of the points of a beta test: you try it out to see if it works, see if anything will be done about it and formulate a workaround just in case it doesn't get resolved for whatever reason.
Whatever happens, what you want at the end is something that works.
Windows 8 will complete the greatest technology migration in modern history. It is ready enough to do what I want it to do. Damn the torpedos! Full speed ahead!
Thats great! I don't think the people who say it's bad believe it is universally bad, just that it isn't great for their situation. My thoughts are it seems great as an 'experience' and pants as a 'tool'. The problem as I see it is that MS is trying to treat everyone as having the same needs. The needs of say a working photographer and a 'home' user will be different and so their tools need to be different. For some people their will be huge value in being able to see twitter feeds and others it will be in an alphabetical access to 60 different applications at a mouse click.
It's true there is usually a natural resistance to change, but this doesn't mean all resistance is invalid.
I love this.
I love that some people really believe that Windows 8 will cause the linux-on-the-desktop revolution to happen. It's a bit like listening to a bunch of decaying old Trotskyites telling each other "this year, Comrades, this year the filthy Tories and their filthy Pasty Tax will deliver the proletariat right into our hands!"
There seems to be this genuine longing for it to happen, like Radio Hams genuinely wishing for a disaster so they can be heroes.
I'm archiving all this so that when Windows 12 kills the Metro Start screen, I can compare and contrast because surely, this time, this time it must be true, mustn't it? It must be? They said the Rapture would be soon, didn't they?
linux on the desktop, 2025?
Metro: The computer boots and you see a grid of tiles that can launch things and give you information on what is going on.
Explorer: The computer boots and you see a grid of icons that can launch things and have a name under them.
Hell, if you remove all the apps from the start screen and just pin icons then you have something which looks a lot like explorer without the task bar.
Metro: The computer boots and you see an unorganized grid of tiles, a few with some useful information but the vast majority with nothing more than the same icons we've seen for decades. No useful information, all strewn over a scrolling screen with no ability to collapse groups to save space. Throw in no ability to run anything in anything but full screen or a fixed 80/20 split (staying in Metro). Throw in many UI elements and tasks totally hidden off screen and many requiring a multiple of mouse actions to accomplish common tasks. And finally throw in the necessity to jarringly return to this screen from the desktop, over and over, to accomplish common tasks.
Explorer: The computer boots to a familiar desktop with an efficient task bar and start menu which holds all installed programs and system activities in a small, optimized, collapsible, efficient list. You can run one or many applications full screen, windowed and in any combination a user chooses to make optimal use of desktop/monitor space. Files can be held and organized on the desktop to the user's liking, or the desktop can be kept clear... again, to the user's liking.
So how's that for feedback? And what, pray tell, will your rebuttal be? More of the same - you're not using Metro right, you haven't given it enough time, you're sticking your head in the sand? How about actually addressing any of the issues any of us have raised over the past months? And might you work for Microsoft? You seem awfully critical of complaints about Metro.
MS probably headhunted him from Apples online propaganda legion, sorry division.
I don't think anyone is saying metro is useless, just that it doesn't suit everyone and that trying to shoehorn the same gui from a phone and tablet onto a desktop is going to be a compromise and not suit everyone. This seems like fairly honest, sensible feedback. People have detailed why it slows them down. MS has decided to stick to its guns. Thats absolutely fine, there are other places to spend our money if MS doesn't want it.
Excluding the pathetic first line of your post I very much agree with the second paragraph. There really was no need to attempt to try and discredit me to validate your point as it's perfectly valid on its own.
I thought you might not have seen any humour in that. It just amused me the vitriol reserved for valid comments about a product released to generate feedback (and publicity). Just because you don't have the same experience or opinion is not good reason to discredit someone else out of hand.
You discredited a valid comment. It is perfectly sensible to tweak the preview to be able to continue testing it. The feedback is then you need to reconsider the gui and also MS get continued feedback on other features that they otherwise wouldn't if he had just stopped.
Content creators probably don't make up a huge market share but this may send a percent or two of the desktop and laptop market to Apple. It depends of they put metro on windows server.
If you look at the evolution of hci we have gone from toggle switches and lights to keyboards to mice and keyboards and then mice kind of diverged into mice, trackpads and nipples to suit different situations. Now touchscreens are going mainstream, they are ideal for consumers, but that is only one segment. I think we need somthing more in the picture before metro makes sense. Perhaps something like a cross between a keyboard and a tablet touchscreen to drive a main display, even a duck hunt style gun. Then we need to not have the computer second guess what links should be there and have a lot more available on a screen.
Sorry but you will never convince me that disabling a major component of something you are supposed to be evaluating does anything but render evaluations incomplete.
And no, I expressed a different opinion. You chose to lob false accusations, there is a difference.
You work in politics don't you?
I didn't 'lob any false accusations, you discredited his views for no other reason than you didn't like them. His review isn't complete, the gui was awkward, the rest fine. Seems pretty complete. Just because you are a Balmer groupie doesn't mean nobody else is allowed an opinion other than yours. When people elaborated you deliberately misrepresented their comments.
Given your post is 0 for 7 I'm not sure you have much support but by all means keep digging!
Try reading people's replies instead of just looking at red and green buttons.
I'm done here. I like a good debate about facts but I can't be arsed when you need to resort to calling people shills and groupies. TTFN
"....and that any needed fixes can be made post-launch."
is this not so with every Windows OS release ?
This.. so much this...
It's a given that any version of windows is only "complete" after release of SP1, which invariably corrects the most glaring flaws and reverses/mitigates the stupidest design decisions. It's simply part and parcel of the MS release cycle.
Vista didn't work properly until SP2 (crashed doing large USB transfers before that in my experience).
That was over 2 years after Vista released.
MS have to release a product early to get the money in, is what it's about.
Then the real beta testing takes place, followed by SP1 ;-)
is this not so with every Windows OS release ?
You mean like Vista? It never got fixed, it got rapidly replaced and then buried. Neophiles got shafted. Buy into the hype and then buy again to get something that was usable!
Windows 9 will be coming sooner than many think.
People have concerns about Windows 8?
And another thing, even the CEO of Intel is now saying Windows 8 is half baked.
How many more people will it take saying Windows 8 sucks before you realize just who's head is stuck firmly in the sand?
The exact same Intel whose hardware isn't ready for Windows 8's launch? The exact same Intel who might very well benefit from users waiting till next year before buying a tablet instead of getting an ARM version this year and taking away some of their share of the precious Wintel tax?
As always with comments like this, follow the money.
Come on, everyone knows the score:
Win95 = Good OS
Win98 = Bad OS
WinXP = Good OS
Vista = Bad OS
Win 7 = Good OS
Win 8 = ?????
See the pattern?
It often feels like Microsoft release a substandard OS to make the next one look like the saviour!!!!!
Ok, so you don't know the order that Windows was released in, that I get. Could you explain why I should take any notice of your opinions about Wundows if you don't even know this basic and easily researchable information?
windows me? hateful sack of cack?
Well we found the one lover of windows millenium edition!
Yes Yes I missed out a few but for reason:
98SE Sack of Pants just to get rid of bugs in 98
ME I don't even like to talk about this pile of ****
2000 I excluded cos it wasn't really widely used in the home market.
Anyways it's all just a bit of jovial fun, some people take it a little too serious me thinks eh anonymous!!!!
This same list gets posted over and over - it's false and tiresome.
Windows 98SE was a fantastic OS (for the time), it was Windows Me that was a very bad upgrade. Windows 2000 is also missing from this list.
Windows XP was a nightmare until it's first Service Pack, and even then it was constant work to keep it going safely until SP2 was released - that was when XP became any good. So many people seem to forget the nightmare period of XP.
You missed out Win 2000 and Win ME.
I guess you weren't there in 95, because Win 95 was a bad one, 98 was better, 98SE the best of that technology, and ME an utter dog's breakfast. Having installed ME you either wiped it and reinstalled 98SE, or you were well softened-up for a new PC running Windows 2000 (which was also pretty bad).
A few months back I loaded 98SE into a VMware VM on a modern fast PC, just for fun. Boy did it boot fast!
It worked fine on my PC too (hides under table), that thing is the weirdest thing Ms ever developed. A 98 with 2k parts.
Can't forget my shock when got infected by hybris, a state of evil art virus, cleaned it to see system bragging to restore file to original (infected) form.
Thank God for f-prot dos freeware.
Everyone should avoid Windows Codename Compromise because of this:
An opinion piece which states right at the top that it is not posted to Wikipedia because the author does not cite sources.
If you install Windows 8 on anything other than a tablet you must be either a newbie or masochist or a Microsoft employee, or simply mentally challenged.
Yes I was one of the people who downloaded the beta and the previews and one of the millions that said “wtf? this is a piece of cr@p, I will never install it on any of my systems”.
I cannot wait for the sh..to hit the fan on October the 25th.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Menu-driven on a touchscreen tablet - broken (or at least awkward), so fix it with big buttons and stuff.
Menu-driven on a desktop without touchscreen - ain't broken in Win7.
So we have style over substance (and usability) in some cases, in the odd view that one size should actually fit all on widely divergent hardware and applications.
fscked by SHA-1 collision? Not so fast, says Linus Torvalds