You’ll Hate Windows 8 | Hacker News Reader

You’ll Hate Windows 8

slate.com

37 pointsspathak61 comments

Apple's key insight was that touch interfaces are fundamentally different than WIMP interfaces. Microsoft's attempt to have its cake and eat it too by smushing Metro on top of Windows and then forcing it down everybody's throat is just going to piss people off.

The right thing to do would be to release Metro as a tablet-only OS and gradually cherry pick the best features for future versions of Windows but they've played the trick of piggybacking everything on Windows so many times now they don't know any other game.

I am actually starting to wonder if Microsoft is intentionally making the PC-version of Metro/Windows 8 awkward to use, as a way to speed up the adoption of tablets.

There's no way in hell that would work. But this is Microsoft, so they may be arrogant enough to think it will.

I think it would be hard to make the argument that Microsoft is arrogant in its current state. Sure, back when no one used anything but Win 95/98 and Office, they strutted around like they could do no wrong. And they continued with this attitude long after they really had any right to. But if you look at their behavior today, they're acting like they have to win users, which they do. The Apples and Googles of the world have unseated Microsoft and the competition has left them a more customer-oriented company, which is one of the biggest reasons competition exists.

I'd be interested to know how/if you think they've been arrogant recently.

I've come to accept the dual personality of win8 and was going to hold off any real judgement until we started to see the hybrid laptops that have touch screens. As of this week, we've seen quite a few and it is strange.

You are touching metro and then may be thrown into classic, where touch is second class. The same shortcomings since Gates started championing convertibles become apparent at an instant. The worst of them, which im sure is configurable, was that touch+drag === click+drag. So in an instant the user is taken from a situation where touch+drag == drag screen around to one where it means highlight. I'm no UX guru, but that was startling.

Old people will hate this.

I could see a huge number of people sitting at the Windows 8 login screen with no clue how to click and drag to login. A simple floating tool tip ala 'slide to unlock' would help a lot.

This is exactly the point of Windows 8! Need to do work? Use the classic desktop. Aside from the Start Menu it hasn't really changed. Office doesn't even look like it will open in Metro.

Want to 'consume' content? Undock it and use it as a tablet with Metro.

Although that makes sense to me as a technologist, I'm afraid that's going to confuse a whole lot of people. "So, this is my computer. That has Office, a bunch of games, etc. But when I take it with me, I can't access any of that? It's all different? Why?"

Apple's insight was that they should remain distinct devices - and I agree with them that this is a better user experience.

> Last month, Jensen Harris, the director of product management for the Windows user experience team, wrote a lengthy blog post in which he documented all the ways that Windows has changed over the last 27 years—and how people always hated these changes until they got around to loving them.

I still hate the ribbon. I haven't met anyone in real-life who likes it.

I still hate the way the control panel apps are organized, and their weird layout in Windows Vista/7. I have gotten used to it, but I still like the old way better.

The user control agent stuff doesn't bother me any more like it did in Windows Vista, but that's because it doesn't go off all the time like it used to.

I liked the new behavior of the taskbar in Window 7 (just an icon, windows grouped by programs) immediately.

I liked the way notification icons were handled in Windows 7 immediately.

I just can't think of anything I hated at first but ended up liking. Can someone help me remember?

I know this isn't real life, but I love the ribbon in MS Office. Made common tasks much more accessible/findable for me.

I don't think anyone can really argue with the idea that common tasks are simpler to find and do with the ribbon interface (excepting the vertical screen real estate issue). The issue with the ribbon is uncommon tasks; they were always hard to find, and people ended up memorizing the specific sequence of menus, shortcuts, and what have you that were necessary to access them. Then along comes the ribbon, and all of those memorized sequences are useless. That's the real issue: I used to know how to do this, and now I have no freaking clue. The online help is usually sufficient, but it still adds time to the process without adding any value.

Also, another change that I've never really seen anyone comment on: the context-sensitive help (where you click the question-mark icon in the titlebar and then click on a widget to see a detailed tooltip description) was basically gutted (I think this was in 2003, so before the ribbon per se) and replaced with a generic and significantly truncated help page that's nearly useless.

I feel the same way. Perhaps new users who didn't use the old versions don't feel this way. But its strange how windows "improvements" manage to be so painful for the faithful users.

I love the ribbon. I just got sick of memorizing arbitrary locations. I also manage IT and see even our more clueless users able to use it with ease. From a non-power user perspective its actually nice.

Not sure whats going on with this metro stuff, but the ribbon has been a pretty big success outside the group of people who have long memorized menus and are annoyed they need to learn something else.

It wasn't just the re-learning that was a pain with the ribbon (although that in itself needs to be justified by some gain, which I just couldn't find in the ribbon that hadn't been found in the graphical tool bars in previous versions). It was that lots of functions weren't even there to find! You had to customize the ribbon just to access functions I used every day.

It also took up a third of my screen real estate on my netbook, so I had to choose the 'auto-minimize' option, and wait for it to slide open every time I wanted to change a font size. What a pain...

I had to leave my cozy Linux system and start using Word 2003 a few months before Office 2007 came out. Even after a few months of exposure to 2003, I had a much easier time navigating the ribbon than I did the menus.

My father, coming from Office 1997, hated the ribbon with a passion.

"I still hate the way the control panel apps are organized, and their weird layout in Windows Vista/7. I have gotten used to it, but I still like the old way better."

GOD THIS. I still have to visually scan for a good 10-20 seconds to find what I want. I'm not sure why XP was easier, maybe because the fonts were smaller with more focus on the icons, plus less of them.

All the old code (e.g. start menu) will still be around and easy to maintain. MS always does it like that. Why not keep a group policy around to enable it? That's what's to hate! The devious removal of things people love. They can make the default all this Metro stuff, but they must make it possible to get the old version back

I can't remember the last time I actually went to the control panel to open something up. I'm too content using the start menu search to bring up control panel menus.

Windows 8 looks great for phones, tablets and hell the XBOX doesn't look too bad either.

However... PC's need productivity. The current way Windows 7 works provides that just fine. It is easy to find and launch programs. You can open up many programs at once and instantly jump from one to another.

You can see everything you are working on. Its nice.

Metro doesn't appear to allow this. I really don't see why you would use Metro in a desktop environment. Enterprise won't pick it up. They won't want to retrain their workforce to use something completely new.

There is no reason to buy Windows 8 if you are happy with Windows 7. Windows 7 was an upgrade for Vista. Vista was an upgrade for XP. Windows 8 is a completely new OS. Its a different product.

Packaging Metro with Windows 8 desktop editions is fine. However the classic desktop view should be the default. You can then switch to Metro if you want and sync that up between devices or whatever. I get the unified interface across devices. I just don't get why Microsoft thought it was a good idea.

You're basically saying Windows 8 looks good on tablets, ok on Xbox, and terrible on desktops. This why I've always thought that you can't shoehorn a single interface and UX on every single form factor, from 4" to 40". If you want "optimized" interfaces and not shoehorned ones, then you will make a different UI (though you can maintain similarities) for each form factor - the best one for that form factor.

Tiles look awesome on WP7 and on the tablets I've seen. But this desktop looks awful: http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2012/06/05/windows-8s-proble...

Metro doesn't appear to allow this. I really don't see why you would use Metro in a desktop environment.

I'm not convinced that MS wants you to- hence keeping the full desktop environment. My impression is that they're preparing Windows for a future where phones, tablets and PCs are entirely converged (sharing data between all) and the desktop is less relevant. We're not there yet, but when we are, MS will be in a great position to cover everyone's bases.

Where are you getting this crap that the Desktop is gone on Windows 8, or that it's soooo difficult to enter, that it might just be impossible.

Boot Windows 8 up in Desktop Mode. Make a settings change. Or select it as default on install.

Microsoft is not dropping the desktop or the enterprise. They make an enormous amount of money from that market and work-flow.

It seems fairly obvious that Microsoft is anticipating single-device computing and getting out in front of it.

A cell phone that can drive HDMI still needs a nice UI for the little touch screen. Apps that run everywhere might not be perfect everywhere, but it is still a nice feature.

(Perhaps 'single-device' is the wrong description, but the barriers to running the same environment everywhere are shrinking, not growing)

An aside, but it only occurred to me with this title that MS has set itself up for a "Windows Hate" nickname for this version. We'll see if it becomes a trend..

> the company considers the enormous popularity of the iPad a major threat to its business,

Microsoft clearly has no idea why people use its software.

What do you mean? Why do you think people use Microsoft's software?

Without sounding too snarky, I think a large portion of Microsoft's users are either corporate users who are locked-into the MS ecosystem, or are users who are unaware of the benefits of other (IMO superior) OSes. I mean to say that Microsoft has benefited from being the de facto default OS for most normal consumers. This is changing as OS X and Linux distros become more mainstream.

I gave the developer preview a try when it came out and I came to pretty much the same conclusions.

Something about hitting the start button and not getting the menu just feels so wrong. It seems so extreme to make the OS default to one app, full screen all the time. Maybe I'm just old school or whatever but having only one app on the screen at a time slows me down about 1000%. Maybe we'll all be using tablets soon or something and I just need to get over it?

Can you explain that a little more? I haven't played with 8 at all yet, but surely they allow more than one app at a time?

well you can go into "Desktop" mode which functions more or less like the current Windows with one major exception - that is when you click the start button you don't get a pop-up menu, instead it takes you back to the metro launch page (full screen). It's very jarring for a windows user to lose your start menu.

It feels like they want to keep pulling you out of desktop and back into the metro mode - which is basically a tablet design for using one app at a time (just like ipad, android, etc). For people who like lots of windows open at once it stinks!

"But in Metro, Windows 8’s primary interface, that’s not possible, because all apps take up the full screen. I could only have one bank site on the screen at a time, and I had to constantly switch between them."

I could have sworn that Win8 had an option to run two applications on a single screen in Metro. Does that not apply to two instances of a single app?

I found this line telling: "It is possible to have multiple windows in Windows 8’s “desktop” app, which is basically a way to mimic Windows 7 on the new OS. Microsoft, though, clearly expects the new interface to become the dominant way to use Windows, so I’ve tried to spend most of my time using it."

Yes, you can. On devices with 1366x768 resolution or higher, you can dock two Metro apps side-by-side. 1366x768 is the minimum "supported" or "logo requirement" resolution, though x86 devices like current tablets can have lower resolution but won't have that feature.

You can do that and more with Windows 7, too. I think he was referring to how quick you can switch between apps in Windows 7. You can't even directly pick an app you were using in Windows 8. You have to scroll through the whole list of them to get the one before.

Wow! TWO whole apps?

Reminds me of when I went on a bit of retrocomputing geekery and discovered the Synergy Window Manager for the DEC Professional, which boasted of its ability to run "up to four applications at the same time".

"Microsoft, though, clearly expects the new interface to become the dominant way to use Windows, so I’ve tried to spend most of my time using it."

This is important. I've had a lot of "pro-Windows"-friends come up to me and say that Windows 8 is great, "the best Windows so far".

Yet, I only see them spending time in the "Windows 7"-mode, essentially using their computer just like they did with the previous versions of Windows. When they do that, they disregard a huge part of what Windows 8 is, and the direction Microsoft wants to take.

Certainly, I may be wrong, but Windows 8 could be a wild success. Currently, there are no good tablets in the enterprise market that allow users both to read and edit documents. Windows 8 gives tablet users access to programs like Excel and PowerPoint with exactly the same level of functionality as they would on a full-fledged desktop PC. This could be a godsend for knowledge workers whose tasks really only require the computing power of a tablet, letting them forgo purchasing a more pricey laptop or desktop.

Also, promoting Javascript and HTML5 as first-class citizens in the Windows 8 environment opens the door to native app development for a massive population of web developers, which is a huge event in software engineering. Web devs will be able to create the same kinds of dynamic UIs with web connectivity as they always have but with the added bonus of file system, GPU, and other kinds of OS access. As a web dev, I'm stoked.

Yes, Microsoft is heavily favoring touch interaction at the expense of the mouse and keyboard interface. It does indeed seem like the unforgiving interface is meant to push touch screen sales, but if people adopt touch screen devices as much as Microsoft is betting, then Windows 8 will be a huge hit. Despite the mouse and keyboard UX, I say kudos to MSFT for trying to advance human-computer interaction beyond the status quo since 1963.

I think Microsoft really liked the Office Ribbon, and they really liked the overall reaction that people had to the Ribbon. So they expanded the Ribbon beyond obscuring the menus of their Office suite, to obscuring the entire desktop/tablet.

The only thing a tablet OS has to do is be obvious about how to use the tablet. If you're really good, your tablet OS will be so obvious that people who successfully use the OS won't be able to explain how to use it, because they never had to think about it.

The only thing a desktop OS has to do is not break convention too terribly or suddenly without obvious benefit.

They only thing the two types of OS have to do jointly is don't interfere with each other. They don't need to support each others' metaphors any more than a bicycle needs clip pedals that accept fins.

It's very clear to me what's going on here. This isn't a tablet os or a desktop os, because I believe that Microsoft is expecting the distinction between those devices to become less of a factor sooner than later. This os is intended for a mobile workstation type computer (AKA "transformer" devices). The implementation could use some polish, but the intent is that the metro ui is for the tablet or phone interface when there is no large format display or mouse connected. The desktop mode is for when the device is hooked up to a larger display and/or a mouse. However, why there isn't a clearer separation between the two interfaces is beyond me. I think this is a smart strategy by microsoft, the real question is whether they got it right. So far, I'm not convinced. That said, Asus seems to be sold on the idea.

To me it looks like Windows 8 is going to be a repeat of Unity interface.

...and KDE 4, and GNOME 3: http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/how-do-i-turn-this-off/

I still don't understand how this was "first worthy rival" to iPad, at Feb 2012.

Well I haven't tried it, but I don't think it'll be that bad. You don't really have to use Metro and stuff like Notepad++ still works fine, so I'm sure you can work just fine with it. So what's the big deal?

First of all, Metro is forced upon you as the new "start menu". That's where you end up when you boot the computer.

Secondly, you have to look at the long term consequences. This may be the direction Microsoft wants to take. Will there be a "Desktop"-mode in Windows 10?

Will it matter in Windows 10? Its like saying "Whoa, I can't install Norton Commander on this Windows95! This sucks!"

I have no idea what the future holds, but change happens. I'm not a fan of metro but as long as I can get to a classic desktop I don't care. As an IT admin I am a fan of the ribbon because its enables our clueless users to find things and not bother IT.

At the end of the day all these interfaces are designed for the lowest common denominator, not power users or develops. That's how mass software production works. We make dumb interfaces for dumb people and they keep getting dumber and dumber. The market has spoken and even Microsoft needs to cater to the app obsessed teenager and middle aged dad who thinks computers are "too hard." Well, maybe they are. Look at the malware and support mess that is the Windows status quo. Fummy how the HN crowds lambasts Windows but refuses to accept any reformation as well.

Its not all bad. I don't think anyone wants to go back to the DOS days. I suspect this is the usual tempest in a teapot that precedes all Windows releases. End users won't care and power users will get around whatever new limitation or UI they don't like.

I smell link-bait and hyperbole if I see a title and subtitle like this:

  You’ll Hate Windows 8
  We may all grow to love it (..snip..)

That said - my coworkers seem to be totally happy about Windows Phone and Windows 8 (all tiles/the whole Metro UI thingy) and won't stop selling it to everyone as the best thing ever during lunch breaks. I didn't try it and I'm not a Windows user during the night. While I don't think that it'll be the right thing for me, at least I seem to live in an alternative universe where Windows 8 is anticipated with excitement.

Try actually reading the article. It is more balanced and informative than the title suggests.

I feel awkward even having to suggest to an HN'er this...

Your implied assumption about me was wrong. I did.

My non native understanding of link bait is defined as using hyperbole in a title to lure in readers. Do you disagree with that definition or with my application in this case?

What is the "Start" in the upper left corner of all the screenshots I've seen of Windows 8. Is this a button?

I miss Win98.

I can see the narrative being set up already, just like I could last time with Vista and Windows 7. The first one "sucks" and the one directly following is "great", except under the covers they are basically the same. And with the first one, the one that supposedly "sucks", you get a bunch of backlash blogposts talking about all the ways it is subtly better than its predecessor and how the people slagging it are bandwagon-riding idiots. Weak.

That kind of reminds me of the Stockholm syndrome a bit. Vista was very disappointing, because users expected something good after XP, and it wasn't. By the time Windows 7 showed up, users were even more tired of XP than they were when Vista launched, and they couldn't wait for a "decent" alternative. After the low standard that Vista set, they were happy that Windows 7 was at least as good as XP or better.

But now people are not tired of Windows 7, and some just upgraded to it a year or two ago. Add that to the fact that it makes the desktop experience very confusing, and I don't see Windows 8 being very successful.

I think people are forgetting the huge performance slowdown with Vista on some hardware. This is the reason I and my colleagues said that it sucked, at the time. Yes, SP1 made it better and the "it sucked" labeled was withdrawn.

I never used Vista much(not a regular Windows user as such), but another reason why people might hated Vista with such passion was perhaps that most of the hardware people had was not sufficient for it. At least that was one major reason among many people I knew. Windows XP ran just fine even on 128MB RAM and Pentium III processor, however Vista required around 2GB for some decent performance. There were many people using considerably old boxes.

This. Microsoft made the boneheaded move of allowing retailers to sell machines that had 1GB of RAM installed with Vista. Could they run it? Sure. Could they run it well? Absolutely not. Because of this, my wife (who made the mistake of letting her "just tech smart enough to be dangerous" sister accompany her to the store) bought a Vista machine that has forever made her swear off "PC's". Now she's a dedicated Mac fan.

Yes, and experience is in the details. The difference between Vista and 7 is not prominent, but it is big.

Having used Vista and 7 side by side (test environment for a customer) I can say that you're spot on. It's many small things but they add up quickly. One example: network adapter settings are completely misnamed in Vista, a major pain to find them.

You probably haven't really seen the worse of Vista, to say that.

My experience, that is matched by some other people around me, is that the difference is that 7 works pretty much out of the box, while Vista could make your computer unusable.

I agree.

I've been using OSX for about 3 years now. I just recently built and set up a PC with Windows 7 in the past 3-4 months. I am in absolutely no hurry to upgrade barring some huge technological innovation, which I have no reason to believe will be coming from Windows 8.

It is properly the same as the Star Trek movies -- one sucks so the executives crack the whip and the next one is great and then he lets go and so the next one sucks.

Regardless of how you feel about the OS itself, I think Windows 8 product are going to have to either be really cheap (to compete against the Kindle Fire) or have some really amazing hardware feature like very good battery life or a better display than Retina Display (to compete against the iPad. From what I can tell, neither of the above will be the case, which means Windows 8 products will be undifferentiated products powered by an OS that is different for different's sake.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com