Even Windows 8 early adopters prefer Windows 7 by two to one | Hacker News Reader

Even Windows 8 early adopters prefer Windows 7 by two to one

zdnet.com

19 pointsCrankyBear50 comments

I have been using Win8 as a main OS for the past 4 months. I can't seem to find anything I need that was there in Win7 and missing in the new version. I love the new keyboard shortcuts (esp. Win+X, A). Metro is by no means a requirement - the old desktop is still there and all programs (even games) run the same.

I guess it's just easier to bash MS than to really see that Win8 is not just Metro/Modern, at least on the desktop. I haven't used it on an ARM device yet so I cannot comment on that.

How do you open an application quickly? For instance, in windows 7 I click start, start typing the name of the app I want, press return, and it opens. I thought the start menu in Windows 8 loaded the Metro UI. How do I use that to launch my app quickly?

All the time it takes for the full screen metro UI to animate into and out of view, is time I could be searching for something.

1. Click start

2. Start typing the name of the app you want

3. Press return

4. It opens

Same exact flow as Windows 7. Typing while on the Start Screen will perform an app search.

You can do the same thing - pressing the Start key does bring up the Metro UI, but if you just start typing there it does the same sort of search for apps/files/etc. that Windows 7 does.

you can essentially do just that, and the process is exactly the same:

(1) mouse-over to the bottom left of the taskbar (same place as before) and in place of a fixed icon (start ‘orb’) a small image of your start screen will pop-up which you can click to open the start screen

(2) from there just start typing (as before) and it will automatically change the layout showing you results for apps. by default the first app in results is selected so you can just press enter to launch it or navigate to others via keyboard/mouse (same as before). that’s it.

you can, of course, still just hit the windows keyboard button and start typing as well which i find faster. there are also now additional keyboard shortcuts that let you quickly search for specific items (win + q/f/w allow you to narrow search between apps/files/settings respectively)

pro tip: if you right-click in the same space (bottom left of taskbar) a menu comes-up with more power-user specific commands (run, command prompt, admin tools, etc...)

I totally agree. I thought the developer preview was a bit flaky, the left/right-scrolling start-screen was too jolting for example (so it was good to see that's been replaced with a fade-in/out). Having now installed the RTM I really rate it.

It's so much quicker and more responsive than W7, the start-search feels more accurate too and again much quicker.

Some of the UI changes take a little getting used-to, like the charms pop-ups, but it also brings some consistency to things like per-app settings.

For anyone who wants to largely keep the W7 experience there's no reason to worry, the desktop is there, the start-bar is there, the start button is there (just without a logo), and the start-screen works very much like the start-menu, you can still alt-tab between screens, and as mentioned above the shortcuts make some of the power features easily accessible without going through the start-screen.

There's always going to be people afraid of change, but I really don't see what there is in here to be so scared about. You're not forced to use the Metro apps at all.

Has there ever been an OS release where (at first) people prefer the new one? Windows 7 might be the exception only because the previous incarnation was so awful.

Ubuntu with Unity? we want the old desktop! IOS6? we want IOS5 and our maps! OSX Mountain Lion? We want Lion!

Change is always hard and almost never goes down well - this is not a new phenomenon and occurs naturally at the beginning of most major software versions. People will get used to it and move on with their lives...

Yes. Windows XP and Windows 7.

If you don't recall the abortion that was Windows ME, then you are lucky. Windows 98 was so clunky compared to Windows XP. All the little improvements and features were fantastic.

Then came Vista and that was another train wreck. But Windows 7 was a dream. It magically found drivers, everything "just worked."

I think you can gauge the success of future OS by the enthusiasts (early adopter) reaction.

Windows XP and Windows 7 had lots of love pre-release. The Windows 8 reception is mixed (as was that for Vista).

Some people are going to love it. I am using it on two machines (a dekstop and an HTPC).

Here's they point though. I _won't_ be installing it on the computers of family/friends (I'm the family tech support).

Watching my wife use it (and the issues with slow user switching, multiple versions of browsers, etc) means its just not worth it. I don't need the extra support calls.

Windows 7 is just fine, especially for legacy hardware (those without touch screens and tablets).

I'm not sure early adopters are the easiest people to please... thinking of "antennagate" from iphone4 and now "scuffgate" from iphone5 I would say early adopters (who I suppose are generally experts - or at least technology-orientated) are more likely to pick up and report on things that

a) get viewership (i.e. complaining) and b) are so subtle the eventual mainstream user wouldn't even notice without it being pointed out to them.

I don't have any hard science to back my claim either way ;-)

So the trick is to release something terrible and then your locked in users won't have anywhere else to turn and get excited about the next 'fixed' release? Got it!

> Has there ever been an OS release where (at first) people prefer the new one?

Every Linux distro with the possible exception of Red Hat 7 (when they bumped up gcc version and broke some binaries) and the ones that replaced the Gnome 2 desktop with Unity and Gnome 3. Every MacOS version with the exception, perhaps, of 7.5 and 10.0.

Poor windows. It is damned if you do and damned if you don't. First they aren't radical enough. Now they are too radical. sigh.

Windows 7 had the perfect balance. It made significant improvements in many areas that XP was insufficient at and Vista sucked at, while keeping the fundamentals the same. Windows 8 though... I haven't used it myself, but from what I'm hearing, it sounds like it's slated to be a bigger disaster than Vista.

I only had to read "I haven't used it myself" to understand why you have the sentiment you do. Try it. It's quite good and not all that different from Windows 7. Seriously.

Oh for sure. I'll try it when it comes out in October.

I think the jury's out on that.

Vista was a disaster because of MS' focus on security. UAC is a usability disaster, both because it's not clear exactly when it is triggered, and the behavior of the system when it is triggered(blanking out the screen then the dialog, etc.). Also, the driver signing meant that a lot of suppliers weren't able to get drivers out quickly enough.

Plus, Vista was a pretty huge system hog, and bogged down even with the "recommended" requirements. That, I think, was the deal breaker for the majority of people.

Comparatively, the complaints I've seen so far about Win8 are either centered around things that aren't really that much of an issue(See Notch's complaints about MS reaching out to him to certify Minecraft), or just new UI/UX designs that they're not used to. I haven't see many complaints about the stuff that matters: performance or driver compatibility.

> blanking out the screen then the dialog

That was a much bigger issue than people give it credit for, especially since Vista shipped on a number of underpowered systems. My first encounter with UAC scared the living daylights out of me: I had just bought a new laptop. A few minutes in to setting things up, my screen turned off. For about a minute. Maybe two minutes. I was freaking out. Eventually it came back with a dialog asking if I would give permission to move a file.

Disaster.

Apple didn't remove core features from OSX to create iOS on the iPad. I think that is one of the issues here. The idea that Microsoft's tablet OS will run the same "Windows" that the PCs run. If anything, Microsoft probably should have left the regular mode alone, and done all of the radical stuff in 'Metro-mode' so that people on a desktop PC could ignore it if it got in the way of their workflow.

If Microsoft thought that they could remove some of these things without any blow-back, then they are idiots. If understood the risks, and assume that things will work out for the better in the end? Then good on them, and good luck.

I'd take Microsoft's approach with Windows 8 over Apple's tack any day. 10.8 is the most convoluted, user-unfriendly OS X yet. Microsoft is right to strip things down so radically and get the basics of the post-WIMP PC right.

What have they removed? Things might be structured slightly differently, but I only see additional features and improvements.

Everyone cries and whines and moans about UI changes. It's like facebook changing their UI. It'll keep happening for a while, until eventually people will accept it and realize that they're being stingy.

My take on Windows 8 is simple, as a desktop OS - you can't take core features and remove them without a viable alternative.

My biggest beef is the removal of the start menu and the search bar on it - I could do/find anything from there.

My other beef is that the Metro UI gives you all these "fullscreen" applications, but no way to window them. Windows provided me with a train of thought, but when you make everything fullscreen, it becomes distracting when using multiple applications routinely.

>> "My biggest beef is the removal of the start menu and the search bar on it - I could do/find anything from there"

This is still there is a different form. WIN+F brings up the search interface in Metro (even from the desktop).

Also, you can kind of window with the snap mode (grab a metro window at the top of the screen and drag it to the side. Not ideal obviously though.

Just so you know, Win+F is file search. Win+Q is app search. Win+W is settings search. I don't really understand how these particular keys were chosen, but that's what they are.

Thanks, it was bugging me that I had to select the one I wanted after Win+F.

Metro is just a 2D representation of the old 1D list. All the items from the old menu are there.

Search bar? Just start typing anywhere on the Start screen. Win+Q is all programs screen + apps search, Win+F - file search, Win+W - search settings in control panel. There are also a lot more search providers to choose from.

Full screen apps? Isn't that cool you can run tablet apps on your desktop? They are not required in any sense, if you don't like them, delete them.

Search is still there.

Just press the windows key and start typing. It's all there, sans the textbox which tells you it's there.

Probably not the pinnacle of intuitive design, but it is there ;)

The search is broken, unless you remember to do Windows + W, the search by default won't search files or system settings, just apps.

I don't get that, even though there is room on that full paged search screen, they only show a couple of apps.

You have to click on options at the right to have it search settings or files. What a stupid, stupid oversight.

Agreed on this. And not having an "all" category in the UI and as the default choice, seems like a weird design decision to me.

It really doesn't matter. The reason this was done is because it fits in better with each application being searchable (you see how this is more consistent?). Once the user realizes this once, the problem is gone. It's really not much harder to search 'settings' if you're looking for a setting than to search apps if you're looking for an app now is it? I don't understand how people make a big deal out of things like this.

When you dont have immense amounts of data to search, having to put in effort to pre-filter your search results feels like unnecessary work.

Filtering should only be needed/useful when the result-set is bigger than the user can handle.

There is a fine line here, but I feel Microsoft missed it and stepped on the wrong side.

Then I should be able to search the "Windows" app, and have a list of other apps underneath. Search in all three categories by default and let me filter later if I want - it would rarely happen.

> The search is broken

It's not broken. They intentionally split apps from settings from files. It's a different search style that takes some getting used to, but it's not broken. All the functionality is still there.

> I don't get that, even though there is room on that full paged search screen, they only show a couple of apps.

This is exactly why they split them. In the Windows 7 start menu, you get 3 programs, 3 emails, 3 documents, etc (and these change based on what got returned). There's not enough room to display a significant number of results if your search hit multiple types.

Now, instead of getting 3 programs, of which none might be relevant, you'll get all the app results. Or all the settings. Or all the files. Or all the store results. Or all the Bing results. Or whatever else you choose.

> You have to click on options at the right to have it search settings or files. What a stupid, stupid oversight.

Tab works fine.

I get why you're annoyed with this. It's a very different style of search than what Windows 7 trained us on. And personally, I'd prefer if settings had been rolled into apps instead of being a separate category, because, e.g., I don't think of the ClearType tuner as a setting. However, I think on the whole the search functionality is greatly improved, because now 3rd party apps can plug in trivially.

I may have to check it out again, thanks for the tip.

My fave thing about Win7 was pressing Win key, then typing "Change resolution", or "change password", etc. I practically didn't need to remember how to reach anything. Laziness I guess ;)

One million times yes.

Do yourself a favor, download and install classic shell: http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/

With classic shell you get a Windows 7.1.

You'll boot right to the desktop (with a quick flash of the Metro start menu).

I think the full screen start menu is fine, Windows isn't the only OS to use it, look at Gnome and Unity on Linux.

My biggest complaints are that system settings are difficult to find and navigate. It took me quite some time to figure out how to even shut down the computer the first time.

I do agree that the distinction between the Metro programs and the desktop programs feels arbitrary and frustrating. You can "Dock" the metro apps on one side or the other, but unless you have a widescreen display, that's not really an alternative to windowing.

Ubuntu Unity has hardly been a huge hit with users either.

I understand the abstract appeal of having a "unified experience" across multiple product lines. But people just don't want to use an interface designed for tablet interaction on their desktop PC.

Why is this so hard for product designers to understand?

I've found that I end up heavily reliant on the VMWare Fusion app menu for anything other than launching Internet Explorer - which, to be fair, is 99% of what I use Windows for.

Says a group of people, 20% of which, are on a 12 year old operating system. Is the problem that Windows 8 sucks or that these users are extremely adverse to change?

Are you trying to say this is not representative of Windows users?

Not at all. I would expect these kinds of numbers and I thought that it was worth pointing out another possible reason for the surmised "conclusion".

> Is the problem that Windows 8 sucks or that these users are extremely adverse to change?

Or both, perhaps.

I thought the same thing. If 20% of the group polled likes XP over Windows 7, you have to wonder who is in this poll.

I bet most of the people in it haven't tried Windows 8, since at least 20% of the people haven't even tried Windows 7...I know that because no one (in their right mind) honestly likes Windows XP over Windows 7.

The other problem is you have no idea what hardware they're trying this on. Windows 8 will make a lot more sense when you run it with new IO devices that support Win 8 gestures.

The writers at ZDNet just love to hate on MS.

While I happen to agree...a poll on an intranet forum is less than scientific.

Also, I don't think Windows 8 is going to work in a corporate environment. The training, etc is just going to be too costly.

Windows 7 is the next Windows XP, and that's a compliment to Windows 7.

Underneath the UI cruft of Windows 8 is a great, solid desktop just waiting to get out.

I agree on on the corporate envirnoment. I wonder if MSFT is even expecting Win8 to penetrate that market. I welcome them taking the big changes and moving forward with Win8. I'll have to wait and see how the hybrid tablet thing works out, but i'm going to give it a go.

I installed Windows 8 last week. After hearing all the noise, I was excited to try something so radical. I ended up a little bit disappointed that things were so similar to Windows 7. But it sounds like there are lots of ways to do things. (10 years ago, that was my primary complaint about Windows.)

What I really want is to make my Win7 install look like Win8. Not the touchscreen-friendly big buttons, but the flat color style, ala outlook.com

Does anyone have any pointers on this?

Install Windows 8 and stay in desktop mode. It's faster and has nice improvements to things like task manager, file copies, etc. There's no need to spend significant time in the "metro" part of Windows 8 if you don't want to.

The poll is confusing. Only 26% of the respondents report actually using Windows 8.

So all the others just voted based on what they heard about Windows 8? If that's the case, it's easy to see why the response is the way it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com