Windows 8: Microsoft will declare victory, but will anyone believe it? | Hacker News Reader

Windows 8: Microsoft will declare victory, but will anyone believe it?

channelregister.co.uk

20 pointsSlipperySlope44 comments

I went to go use a Windows 8 PC at Best Buy the other day and was shocked.

In screenshots everything looks clean, crisp, and modern - then comes the task of using it. I don't understand who at MSFT thought it was necessary to preface every action by a splash screen and inordinately long loading times. Also, am I missing something? Does everything you do have to be full screen? Is having multiple windows open and multi-tasking a thing of the past?

I know I'm coming from a place of ignorance - having only used it for about five minutes. I'm sure I don't quite understand how to use the OS yet. However, I design software for a living. If I'm not able to immediately figure out how to use everything and why this is a better approach than what they've done before, or what their competitors are doing, then how is the mass populace?

I hate to come on here to be so negative, but the usability of Windows 8 is simply abysmal.

>Does everything you do have to be full screen?

No. You can have two apps open side by side.

>Is having multiple windows open and multi-tasking a thing of the past?

According to the tablet market leaders (Apple and Google), yes. BTW the desktop still supports this for power users. Other comments have pointed out that non-power users likely won't care about this issue.

>I know I'm coming from a place of ignorance... I'm sure I don't quite understand how to use the OS... I design software for a living.

And herein lies the bigger issue. You're used to the old way. You're comfortable with the old way. You like the old way. So do I. That's not a bad thing, and Microsoft left in the desktop for people like you and me (and most others on this forum). Nothing has changed there. I run Windows 8 on my laptop and spend 99% of my time on the desktop like it's Windows 7 with some nice new features added on (and a better security model).

However, a great number of computer users seem to prefer the simplistic style of iOS or Android. It lets them focus on one task using a very simple menu to get from one app to another. They don't need multiple windows overlapping each other, and they don't need tiling window managers. They don't want multiple open windows distracting them. This is why the iPad was made, this is why Android tablets are made, and this is why Windows 8 and Windows RT were made.

For us, we'll complain about the limitations of the Metro UI then switch to the desktop and forget about it. For them, they'll stick to the RT components, possibly momentarily confused by the drastic change from Windows 7 to Windows 8, then settle in and forget they're using a PC. That's probably a good thing. The last thing these users need is their personal IT guy going on and on about how Windows 8 is awful and the RT components are awful and it shouldn't be used. How long have we all spent trying to teach our parents/grandparents how to get around in Outlook and Firefox, writing down a list of steps they'll need to take to get to their email, or how to bring up the new picture of their grandkids? I actually bought my grandma an iPad so I wouldn't need to do remote support over the phone anymore. 5 minutes of instruction and she was ready to go.

I think RT will be a good thing for your average user. I think it will be a mild grumbling point for power users, deserving no where near the current amount of vitriol spewed on the Internet. Think of the RT stuff as an iPad built into (and complimenting rather than replacing) your desktop. You don't have to use it.

On the other hand, I also design software for a living and despite having used it a large number of times I still find OSX to be (for me) a usability nightmare. I just don't know how to do anything and find the interface completely counterintuitive.

Windows 8 seems just like Windows 7 with an extra layer and I found Windows 7 to be extremely usable. It's all pretty subjective.

That's really the problem. Windows 7 / 2008 R2 are by far Microsoft's best operating systems yet. Going to be very tough to replace, which is what they seem to be trying to do.

Win 8 is a better OS than Win 7. Sensibly faster, proper multi monitor support, lots of cool improvements (explorer, task manager etc).

It's sad that most people can't see behind Metro. Press Winkey +D on that start screen and start enjoying a great OS.

Metro is what they're selling. Are you blaming people for testing Microsoft on their own promises?

They do NOT "sell" Metro for the desktop.

Yes, but it's horribly ugly visually. I just can't do that to myself.

You should watch some average users use the computer some time. Multi-tasking is very much a power-user feature, most people maximize everything - even things that have no business being maximized. Users will maximize a browser window, and then complain about all the white-space to either side of a column of text. And then they'll maximize their skype contacts list or something similarly narrow, and complain about how they can't see both skype and a webpage. By forcing fullscreen, microsoft is forcing app makers to design for the most common use case.

Maximizing and multi-tasking are completely orthogonal.

Jamming more application windows on the screen does not mean you are "multi-tasking". You still have to interact with one piece of software at a time. It just means you slide your mouse over to another program and click to change contents instead of alt-tabbing or clicking on the menubar (or whatever the task switching metaphor is in the OS of choice).

In old *Nix systems before X you just hit alt and a function key to switch usage contexts, but you could still multitask in many cases on a single terminal just by dispatching a task to run in the background, and just check the result later.

I can attest to this - any average user I witness using a computer, maximizes everything. And then minimizes. And then maximizes. And exactly that, complains about wasted space.

This is because overlapping window managers are fiddly. Moving around overlapping windows feels cluttered and unclean (yes, even with the feature to snap them to the left/right half of the screen).

Proper tiling+tabbed window managers (e.g. i3) are much better at organizing screen space in a clean way. You can split the screen into window holders. Each window holder can be tabbed or stacked. Essentially what you get is the ability to split your monitor into multiple smaller monitors. Makes a lot more sense than the jumbled overlapping mess.

See http://i3wm.org/screenshots/

edit: here is a rather impressive screenshot that demonstrates the power of the tiling-tabbed/stacking concept: http://i3wm.org/screenshots/#/screenshots/i3-2.png

I would disagree with that. My personal experience tells me that users shun multiple windows not because the WM is fiddly, but because the others windows distract them from the content of the window they're focusing on. Working tech support, I've had many users ask which window to type something into when there are multiple windows open, regardless of the fact that there is only one window we've been working with.

Anecdotal evidence maybe, but I don't see any facts backing up either side.

Indeed. I was actually speaking from personal experience and the experience of the few colleagues I introduced to i3. I don't really know what the average user thinks - could be very different.

Power user here. I do this as well and use Alt-Tab to switch between the windows. I tend to prefer lower resolution screens as well (typing this on a 1280x800 screen on Windows 8 Pro).

Windows 8 and ironically Metro are actually very keyboard friendly. I can imagine if I get hold of a surface pro unit, I'll probably be entirely happy with a touch screen, keyboard and stylus and do away with the mouse.

I've been using it as my primary OS on both my home and work desktop (as well as on several tablets - I work for Microsoft) for about the last year. The biggest issue I had with it at first was my perspective on what the native environment is. If you treat the metro home screen as the native environment, and the desktop as a secondary environment, your desktop experience wont be pleasant. While it's fine and dandy to use it the majority of the time if you're on a tablet, on a desktop those interactions don't make as much sense. When I started to use the metro home screen as purely a launcher on my desktop, things became great. I came from a linux background so I really missed the integration that alt+f2 had when I moved to windows (or spotlight if you're an OSX guy). Metro as an alt+f2/spotlight alternative is absolutely fantastic. Winkey+type anything and you're where you want to be. It really grows on you, and I'm honestly more productive on win8 now than I am on win7. As for the Metro apps, on a desktop I've found that they serve a nice purpose if you have multiple screens. I really enjoy having my mail + calendar metro apps up on one screen while I do work on my others. Just my perspective on things, which again may be heavily biased as I work on Windows.

Isn't Microsoft pushing Metro as the primary environment and the desktop as a legacy environment?

No they are not. The two are designed to work together. When your PC is docked with a keyboard attached, it's a workstation with tablet features. When it's not docked, its a tablet with workstation features.

>When your PC is docked with a keyboard attached, it's a workstation with tablet features. When it's not docked, its a tablet with workstation features.

That's definitely a good way to look at it. I really enjoy how Windows 8 is the mixture of the two and compliment each other very well.

This is my understanding; it's based on the assumption that touchscreen devices are the future of computing.

On the metro side, you can snap an app to the side and have one app be the primary (http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-8-featu...)

Out of all the things to complain about in Windows 8, the splash screen seems to be pretty far back in the list of things. Also, on what apps are you experiencing long load times? I just tried opening Skydrive, Music, and Video and they all loaded very quickly. The only one that took awhile was Netflix, which I assume took a little longer because it had to log in to my account, and even then it was less than 4 seconds.

It's also a problem apple has solved by using a screenshot of the application's default/previous state as the splash screen.

The problem hasn't been solved. Apple's use of the screenshot is a design trade-off.

Apple's design

Pro: You see the previous state of the app, and have the perception that the app has loaded quickly.

Con: Many times the UI is blocked while the app is loading data, or if the UI isn't blocked you are still waiting on data to be able to actually do anything.

Microsoft's design

Pro: Consistent splash screen experience on all apps. User understands that the app is loading during this time. If app needs to download a lot of data, the splash screen presents an animation to indicate it is working.

Con: Have to view a splashscreen on app load. May not be perceived as having loaded as quickly as Apple's implementation.

I don't think you can necessarily state that one is better than the other.

They learned with Windows Phone 7 apps, that smooth (long) animations and colorful splash screens can make under-powered hardware seem a lot more responsive. Instead of doing nothing for a few seconds and then popping up your app, it immediately plays an animation, shows a splash screen, then shows your app. It's better than nothing but it would be nice if they just threw better hardware at the problem.

To be fair, you could say the same about iOS.

Windows 8 only makes sense on tablet/laptop hybrids. I think you'll feel differently about the usability of the system once you get to try it out on newer devices that are coming out. Here's an interesting article about one such device http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/9/3475334/acer-iconia-w510-p...

Disagree. Up front warning - I work for MS. I've been using it on my desktop as my primary OS for a while now and I heavily prefer it over win7. The keyboard launching functionality is what sells it for me, and honestly I become pretty frustrated when using win7 now because of it. It's still the same OS, just with a different way of launching programs. Coming from a CLI/vim background, I really appreciate how keyboard oriented it is.

I have yet to see a typical user use keyboard shortcuts. My mother, for example, will still use the mouse to click File then Quit/Exit when she wants to close a program.

Your testimony tells me that Win8 may see better adoption amongst windows programmers than windows users.

I think rather his assertion is that Windows 8 has great keyboard shortcuts for power users, as well as an interface that is friendly to standard users. It's easy to look at the UI and think it will be horrible for m+k, but with keyboard shortcuts that gets better.

Exactly. Whereas windows 7 stood firmly in the middle ground between power users and novice users, Windows 8 now has two modalities of use. The mouse driven approach is friendly/easy to use for novice users, while the keyboard driven approach will allow power users to be more productive.

I don't know if this is the case, but sometimes knowing too much can be a detriment to an open mind.

Well, when both Vista and 7 came out, Microsoft would tout the great adoption rates they were seeing with their sales numbers. They would conveniently leave out that purchasing a PC with XP on it at that point involved buying Vista/7, and then "downgrading" it, which went on the books as a Vista/7 sale, but went to the customer as an XP sale (ish).

So yeah, when Microsoft declares victory, I NEVER believe it.

Essentially ...

"There’s much to be excited about. Yet, not many in the channel are excited. In fact, the Microsoft ecosystem – component makers, PC manufacturers, distributors and resellers – is bracing for a lull rather than a surge in Windows-related sales."

On the same note, with today's economy it's likely the majority won't bother upgrading since their Windows installs work, so why upgrade now?

That may be true but, as far as I remember, it's the most sensibly priced version of Windows yet. Only $40 to upgrade.

It almost feels like MS is setting itself up to be able to throw their whole OEM ecosystem out the door. MS is seeing their market shrink, so they may decide to stop sharing it with other people like they have in the past. They are starting by getting their toes in the water with Surface, Azure and direct-licensed upgrades to Windows.

If so, that would be the boldest thing I've seen from Balmer (which is why I'm very hesitant to actually believe it).

Out of curiosity, how do you see Azure fitting in to this plan?

Easy - it's the fabric on which the iCloud-like services from Microsoft will be delivered.

Didn't Apple rely on Azure (in addition to other cloud providers) for iCloud? Or am I completely off the mark there?

I'm wondering why the traditional OEMs would feel betrayed by new cloud services. I guess it fits the general "post-PC" theme.

The problem with Windows 8 is that Microsoft built a touch-oriented operating system, but none of the OEMs are shipping machines that are notably more touch-oriented than their Windows 7 lineup. And the Metro aspects of Win8 offer no benefits to a mouse user, while being significantly less discoverable without touch. You just have to watch a few "first time using Windows 8" videos on Youtube to see how unintuitive it is with a mouse.

It's actually ok with a mouse - it just takes a bit of getting used to. To be honest, I use it entirely with the keyboard now (Metro included). I've forced myself to use Caret browsing in IE and the reuslt is that I've actually turned the touchpad off on my ThinkPad. This is not because I don't like the mouse interaction, but because I like the keyboard interaction.

I agree however that this is primarily touch oriented, which is why they're pushing surface. I'm grabbing a surface pro when it comes out.

I've tried it on a Sony AIO desktop PC with touch support and it was pretty good on that. Unfortunately it's the kids' PC so I don't get to meddle with it much.

I think Windows 8 is a long-term proposition for Microsoft. I doubt they are expecting any remarkable change in the short term; there just won't be enough compelling Win8/touch-enabled devices out there to make a difference. They need to grow market share over time. They are practically giving away the upgrade to consumer users which a big change from the past.

This is similar to the early XBOX strategy, which took quite a while to come to fruition, but the XBOX division is now doing very well in terms of market/mind share.

Microsoft clearly wants to enterprise market and that takes time.

> Microsoft clearly wants to enterprise market and that takes time.

It's a pity that Canonical haven't seized on this and made their focus Ubuntu in the enterprise. I think it's pretty clear that Ubuntu as a consumer OS is a dead duck, but it does have a place as a viable alternative to Windows in the business environment. Sadly, this doesn't seem to be their primary focus and continue to put resources into 'touch' computing, Unity and mobile devices where they're never going to effectively compete with Apple, Google and Microsoft.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com