Under the hood of Windows 8, or why desktop users should upgrade from Windows 7
extremetech.com
extremetech.com
I'm really pleased to see an article like this at the top of HN. It's informative and side-steps both the marketing bullshit about the metro interface and all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth that metro has engendered.
More like this please.
Reading this article, I kept going back to the top of the page to make sure I was still on ExtremeTech and didn't get rerouted to a different site.
It's only been around for nine months or so on a platform with an actually significant number of users: XBox 360.
It's coming soon to a platform with something like ten times the number of users the 360 has: Windows. So there's going to be a lot of people encountering it for the first time over the next few months.
It gets old. I'm getting tired of sounding like a Windows 8 fanboy (I'm actually fairly ambivalent) just in comparison with the ridiculous hyperbole and FUD being spewed here constantly.
Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Gnome 3 or Unity. They seriously believe that you'd want that for everything.
I'm sorry, but are you kidding me?
What do you think is better and why? Perhaps "better" should be defined. I certainly don't think that shiny is better. I prefer utilitarian and flexible interfaces. Windows fits that bill swimmingly and I think most businesses would agree because I don't see many of them using anything else outside of Google.
The Windows WM adds a bit to much shine to windows (for me) and doesn't have the efficiency that I love with tiling window managers. Mostly the ability to have everything I want viewable at once, along with keyboard commands to manage everything, is what makes tiling window managers so awesome for me.
Having said that, I do recognize that it's only this way for me. For many people, the default Windows WM provides plenty of power and flexibility to be awesome.
I was going to suggest XMonad as well, in response to this. Seriously, try it if you're using Linux.
You like utilitarian and flexible and you're really sitting there telling me Windows is the sweet spot for that? Are you being intentionally ironic? That's the posterboy slogan for Linux if I've ever heard it. I guarantee there's no way that the Windows WM is "more flexible" than any linux WM. And utilitarian? I assume you have workspaces in Windows? You can activate/deactivate stick edges easily? You can do any dimensional grid system you like? You can have floating windows?
Those are features I use every single day. I feel like I've at least offered why I don't see how Windows's WM could possibly be "better" but then again I'm not the one making that claim. So far it's just you and other guy acting like it should be obvious why Windows' is superior.
It's consistent. It's been consistent for 7 iterations. 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8.
It's stable. Everything shows up exactly where it's supposed to and works like it's supposed to. I have 4 high-resolution monitors set up and Windows handles it like no other operating system could.
Consistent + Stable = Win
However, what keeps me using Windows isn't the GUI. It's the driver availability, quality, and support. And that, of course, comes from market dominance.
And besides, again, nothing to show how it's any better. You want <title> <minimize> <maximize> <close>? Guess what? You just described almost every window manager in existence, save for them having those switched around. They're all drag-and-dropable, they're all resizeable.
I don't think you guys have anything to hold onto other than lofty words and what you're used to.
As for drivers, that's a sad joke that just goes to show that you don't know what you're talking about. Go buy a Samsung Series 9. Works out of the box in Arch, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora. The: wired, wireless, display driver, chipset driver, memory card reader and touchpad were ALL broken in Windows 7 and Windows 8.
You are restricted to hardware that works on your operating system of choice. You read forums and check to make sure everything will work the way you want to. Even then, you have to constantly worry that whatever solution you hacked together won't give you degraded performance.
I buy any hardware I want, with the full knowledge that it will work properly on Windows the way the manufacturer intended. Even Apple, the only major manufacturer out there that doesn't make hardware targeted at Windows, puts out drivers for Windows.
Oh, and I wasn't even talking about vanilla laptop/desktop hardware. I was talking about fingerprint readers, high-end or esoteric NICs, FM/AM radio receivers, brand-spankin-new motherboards, etc.
That doesn't apply to the majority of people, but it applies to me.
> I don't think you guys have anything to hold onto other than lofty words and what you're used to.
If we're used to something, then it must be consistent? Otherwise, how can you get used to it?
> Again, what are you talking about. Be specific. What is consistent?
The experience. Somebody who knows how to use 95, can use 98, 2000, XP, Vista, and 7 with ease.
That's why everybody's going nuts about 8. With 8, you have to click on a tile before you get that consistent experience.
Again, you've listed NOTHING about the Windows WM that you are "used to" or is "particularly consistent". Because, you and I both know what those things will be and that most Linux DEs have the exact same configuration.
You've yet to be specific about a single thing and spent most of this last post on a fool's errand about Linux drivers????
> I guarantee there's no way that the Windows WM is "more flexible" than any linux WM.
The new version of Nautilus is competitive for being less flexible!
> I assume you have workspaces in Windows?
I personally never used workspaces, I prefer alt-tab. When I have 2+ monitors workspaces seem clunky and just another layer of tab switching with different buttons. Monitors have gotten big, cheap, and plentiful enough that the original use case of workspaces is falling by the wayside. Not saying the option to use them is bad, just that I have no use for them personally, for the reasons above.
> It's consistent. It's been consistent for 7 iterations. 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8.
The original explorer.exe was a wrapper on the DOS terminal and would regularly crash when trying to open something because the kernel wasn't preemptive. Wasn't really consistent UX at all. The old Windows 9X everything was always buggy, blue screen prone, and crash happy. The introduction of Aero in Vista also significantly changed a lot of the WM UX (start menu search, layout, composting, etc). The changing the of the start bar to a pinnable dock in 7 was also a pretty radical shift.
> Consistent + Stable = Win
I'd argue consistency doesn't matter as much in Linux world, because you can just use an old WM if you like it more than a new one. And if you like it more, it is probably stable. If it starts breaking, someone will probably fork it.
> It's the driver availability, quality, and support. And that, of course, comes from market dominance.
I haven't found many devices in recent memory that don't have some Linux support without the manufacturer going out of their way to obfuscate the implementation. A lot of people put in a ton of effort to make hardware work under Linux that the manufacturers don't care to properly document.
> They're all drag-and-dropable, they're all resizeable.
I get really annoyed in a lot of Linux WMs / DEs because of how they don't support drag and drop on the panel / launcher. XFCE requires writing obfuscated launchers, for example. I could get into why I'm not implementing that feature myself, but the intricacies of X drag and drop are something I don't have the patience or intelligence to dig into.
> You are restricted to hardware that works on your operating system of choice.
Windows won't run on a raspberry pi, anything based on powerPC, ARM (at least in a functional version, Windows RT is a trainwreck in my book by branding alongside Win8 without x86 emulation). If you are arguing that traditional laptop / desktop manufacturers are making sure their devices work with the pre-installed OS, color me shocked.
I never got on board with the crusade to make Linux run on every piece of hardware ever, because I think that is giving hardware manufacturers too much credit. Trying to reverse engineer everything is basically giving them a pass on making devices that don't work the way they are intended. If they don't want to give the kernel devs even the crumbs to replicate functionality, just telling people that company is an asshole is plenty in my book. There is nothing beholden to an OS to support everything you can plug into a usb port, even though it is neat when a wiimote works.
> I buy any hardware I want, with the full knowledge that it will work properly on Windows the way the manufacturer intended. Even Apple, the only major manufacturer out there that doesn't make hardware targeted at Windows, puts out drivers for Windows.
I have had plenty of printer / NIC / sound card driver issues under Windows, even in 7. Software doesn't suddenly become bug free, especially complex software like an OS, just because it has profit motive behind it.
> So Linux doesn't run on specific hardware that require hand crafted drivers from the manufacturer. Off topic much? We were talking about consistency of window mangers.
The argument devolved into Windows vs Linux when it is apples and oranges. Microsoft is a for profit company that incentivises you buying their OS (either prebundled or in a box) and Linux could care less, even though Ubuntu / Red Hat like supporting you for money when you use it. But Linux is developed because OSS developers want a desktop they like (or a server, or a seismometer, or a robot..) and Windows is developed to be sold to you. Different use cases.
> Again, you've listed NOTHING about the Windows WM that you are "used to" or is "particularly consistent". Because, you and I both know what those things will be and that most Linux DEs have the exact same configuration.
Some things I like about the Windows desktop:
Windows don't randomly open in strange places (a lot of gtk apps have a habit of launching half off screen depending on prevous resizing, Evince does it a lot). Windows has GUI based kernel hooks to recover from a bad process (if I want to do the equivalent of ctrl-alt-del in Linux, I need to switch off X to a TTY and try fixing it from the terminal, because there is no Gnome based (to my knowledge, at least) way to override a fullscreen openGL application that crashes, ex: Space Pirates and Zombies, recently).
The system tray in Windows is a lot easier to work with since you can select options right from it, rather than through system settings in some Gnome desktops, and I still don't know how to configure it under Cairo Dock, Docky, Cinnamon, or XFCE.
Windows had a really nice out of the box behavior where I could just stick the taskbar on the left side of the screen and have the entire screens worth of vertical space available. In something like Firefox, that would mean the maximized app would have tabs in the title bar, so I had an entire 1080 pixels of Firefox, and on a 16:9 monitor that is really useful. I still can't find a WM that lets Firefox (I think Chrome can do it in some) do the tabs in the title bar thing. I figure it wouldn't even be hard - I could imagine a WM just giving the application whatever space the title bar occupies to work with, with some statistics about where the navigation buttons are, so it can control the transparency and draw in the title bar as well, and just avoid those buttons. That was a tangent. Also not going to try to get that implemented in Muffin / Mutter or whatever, because it sounds hard.
Anywho, only KDE seems to allow the same UX (vertical panel on left with system tray, time, etc, built in, letting applications have the entire vertical pixels for the rest of the screen, with a panel like pinnable launcher bar, and they don't have neat mouseovers like Windows has previews of open windows or system controls).
Alt tab is nicer in Windows (even though some Compiz active corner effects are neat in Unity / Cinnamon with whatever they replaced Mendacity with I don't even remember now) since it shows the open Windows. Cinnamon has a smart corner that intelligently fills the screen with active windows though, which is also really cool. But alt-tab in Unity / Gnome (by default at least, I have even tried reading a bunch of manuals on these desktops and I still don't know 5% of potential configurations) just shows icons.
Another thing is the super-key behavior, Windows does it really well with the ability to just type and enter commands, or have a dynamic search that is intelligent by remembering your history, recent files, etc. Unity is similar, Gnome 3 is close, and KDE is close too, but respectively, Unity and Gnome have terrible / almost no configuration and dumb top bars as a result and KDE is slow as hell (at least on startup, but it even lags my i7 920 on some of its composting).
I do use Linux almost full time now - I have been transitioning off Windows for the last ~6 months, since Steam was announced on Ubuntu. I got SC2 / TF2 / League running under Wine since then, so I don't have any real reason to restart in Windows (except Darksiders 2 for a fwe weeks, that game was amazing and I'm too dumb to create custom Wine environments and find all the DLLs it needs without a playonlinux script).
Woo, wall of text.
A window manager that doesn't handle multiple monitors well in 2012 is just sad...
Please, name something you can do in Windows or Mac and I'll tell you how easy it is to accomplish with my setup in Linux.
And also, how is Windows better than Mac in this regard? You have a massive problem with "my opinion is obviously objectively right".
But let's not get into how slow Unity is on hardware that blazes with Gnome 2 or Windows... if I could easily get the same thing but much, much faster and something that lets me put that taskbar anywhere I want on the screen, I'd be happier.
Indeed.
And actually, after installing 12.10 on, to be fair, new hardware, Unity was just as fast as anything else.
I do despise GNOME 2 and especially its taskbar window list. I'm glad I've found someone else as pained by it as I.
I think the old-school task bar is potentially more useful because it lets you see the window titles at one glance. But it just doesn't scale well beyond a dozen or so windows, either all the text is elided or you end up grouping windows by program at which point you might as well use a dock.
Only problem is that this has become so ingrained that I keep doing it on computers without this setup!
I use desktops to partition stuff so there are manageable amounts of Windows at a time.
Hide away your email and other interruptions until you're explicitly ready to go look at them. Out of sight, out of mind.
Multiple projects. I have a legacy app I support and a new-development project I spend most of my time on. I can spread the work for each of these out across multiple windows on multiple desktops, and switch between them when I'm ready to context-switch. When I do, everything is laid out exactly the way I want it.
I'm back on Windows for now, but great multiple desktop support is the thing I miss most from a Linux desktop.
Ideally I'd have four dedicated monitors - but on my one work monitor I'd settle for four virtual desktops that I can cycle through similar to alt+tab.
So in short for him he is not kidding, for you he is and your both right, lets not go down this path.
Why would I use anything but the Desktop mode? I can already make apps fullscreen if I want, but I definitely don't want to be limited to only fullscreen mode.
So what advantage does Metro have for a desktop user?
Zero.
This is why I don't understand, say, the Verge's positive Windows 8 review. Sure, the desktop is still "usable." If you ignore Metro, it becomes an over-engineered full screen start menu.
And somehow, having the most massive upgrade to Windows be, at best, ignoreable on desktops and laptops doesn't make Windows 8 instantly a massive failure?
The Metro interface on a PC is designed to stem or reverse that trend. Why jump to a tablet when you can stay with the PC and use it like a tablet? Or better yet, when your tablet IS your PC, and your PC is a tablet. Metro is useful. Maybe not to me, maybe not to you, but we're a small subset of users. There are many who don't tolerate the desktop.
The security comes from the sandboxing model rather than the UI.
A big selling point of Windows has always been "use the same OS at home and at work". If MS are guessing that home users will largely go for WinRT devices over full on Windows 8 boxes they lose that advantage if there is too much fragmentation as you will have completely seperate app ecosystems for each.
It is also an OS for hybrid devices such as the Intel based Surface tablet.
To leverage the Desktop monopoly to force users to get familiar with the interface of Microsofts mobile offerings, which had no success to gain user acceptance on their own.
> Why would I use anything but the Desktop mode?
Because the start menu will be removed to force you to switch to metro to start desktop applications. You will use it (and get familiar with it) whether you want it or not.
> So what advantage does Metro have for a desktop user?
Nobody claimed any such advantage in the first place.
FUD.
Because the start menu will be removed to force you to switch to metro to start desktop applications. You will use it (and get familiar with it) whether you want it or not.
FUD.
Nobody claimed any such advantage in the first place.
Incorrect.
Edit - While you're downvoting me, I'd like to point out the statements that I quoted from the parent. They're a slippery slope argument at best, and patently false at the worst. There is no indication that Microsoft will be removing the desktop. There's no indication that Microsoft is trying to unconscionably leverage their desktop monopoly into the mobile world via Windows (any more than any other company hopes to). And yes, people have claimed (and I think successfully) that Metro is useful for end users. Ask yourself if you agree with his statements, and then if they're backed up by any actual facts. I believe he's spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt just to settle a personal vendetta.
Not FUD. I agree with that statement the parent said. Why else would Microsoft think of including the Metro interface with the desktop. It doesn't make sense.
>FUD.
I'm not sure how anyone could consider that FUD. There is pretty much no other justification for this metro/desktop mashup possible. I've never even heard pro-ms bloggers talk about one. Why else would they do away completely with the start menu for desktop use and force the start screen? It's certainly not a superior experience for desktop use. Additionally, you didn't provide an argument to support your "FUD" assertion.
Otherwise, why even call it Windows? Why not just call it Windows Tablet?
There are many, but one compelling reason is having the best of both worlds. You may disagree on whether it's possible or not, but that is the goal: two usage modes in one device.
> Why else would they do away completely with the start menu for desktop use and force the start screen?
Because it's better [1].
(I am an employee but these are entirely my own opinions and experiences)
[1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-...
With respect: I don't believe them when they say it and I don't believe your rehashing of it either. I find "we need to get people using this so they don't regard our mobile offerings as crap" to have much more of the ring of truth. I am of the mind that if your stated reason was actually the reason, there'd be a way to opt out of it. (Unless this is a fairly thoughtless attempt to mimic the Apple "this is what we're doing" mindset, which sort of hinges upon having a certain amount of taste. I don't believe this to be the case.)
> Because it's better [1].
I don't agree, and yes, I've used it. The conceit is junk. My desktop isn't a tablet. I can, as shocking as this may sound, multitask. I want to have nothing to do with something that decides it needs to take over my primary monitor (on which I may be doing other things while I call up Start search--ex. I may be watching something in a VLC stay-on-top window) against my wishes, and I refuse to be a party towards Microsoft's progression towards making their (poor, developer-hostile[1]) app store the Only Game In Town.
[1] - Apple's is both of these things, too. I don't use it and I'm not funneled towards a UI that doesn't let me go outside of it, though.
The fact is, Microsoft hasn't given a real good reason why Metro should exist on the desktop.
Examples:
Some would say, for example, that Google's Chrome browser is evil because Google wants to monopolize the internet -- but Chrome is a very good browser, it's opinionated, but a successful product, so people can safely ignore concerns about Google's incursion into the browser space.
Another good example is Apple's iMessage which makes texts free for iPhone users to each other. Again, by offering cost savings to the end user, Apple bolsters iPhone appeal in ways that greatly offset whatever it costs them to get mobile operators like AT&T to provide this feature (I'm sure it's not free to Apple). Some would argue that this preferential pricing is unfair to smaller handset manufacturers like LG or HTC as it would be impossible for say, free texts from Android to Android and HTC to HTC is too small for anyone to care.
If you're so pro-Metro here, you need to explain what advantages it provides to the end user. Right now, it's looks like a giant roadblock to your average desktop user.
Why would I want 2 different operating systems if the underlying goal is to reduce the complexities of needing 2 devices... one for 'play' and one for 'work'?
My phone is supposed to be good at calling, texting, and browsing the web on the go. That's a much different purpose than my laptop, which is meant for coding, etc. So doesn't it make sense for them to have different operating systems?
A different OS for a server than you run on a phone? You mean like the difference between Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8 Server? Because it's a huge difference. Not even comparable. You're saying you can't code on a Windows 8 laptop? How am I running Visual Studio 2012 right now? In another window, I have an SSH session open to my VPS, editing some Golang files.
Here's the problem: Microsoft is basically giving you a free iPad bundled with the update to Windows 7. It doesn't hurt anything to have it there, but for a great number of people it really helps. Those people will likely never see the desktop, never care that it's there, and that's exactly what they want. For people like you and I, the only time we'll see Metro on our laptops is when we boot and when we hit the start button to search for a program via keyboard. The desktop is still there. It hasn't changed except for getting better. And yet people still seem to want to turn it into a negative with hyperbole, FUD, slippery slopes, and sometimes even outright lies. The world has not ended. It hasn't even changed. Window is Windows, your phone is a phone, your server is a server, and you still complain.
Quote:
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.
Not to repeat the same point again and again, but this could definitely be Microsofts' moment of truth. Basically, I feel MS is going all in, double or nothing or whatever other comparison you want to pull out.
The problem is, if it works, people will laud MS for their bold move. If it spectacularly blows up in their faces, everyone will spare no words in saying "They should've known. It was obvious. People were complaining way before they even launched."
I personally feel MS is at that point in time where services and hardware each are taking value away from the software and they feel desperate to throw anything at the wall. I'm also pretty sure that they don't really expect the Enterprise folks to use Metro so I wouldn't be really surprised if somewhere down the line, they release an "Enterprise/Professional" only service pack that allows you to boot to Desktop.
http://www.7tutorials.com/how-boot-desktop-windows-8-skip-st...
So the best quasi-hack I do is move the desktop tile to the top-most position. When the computer has just booted up, this allows me to simply press "Enter" and go to the desktop since I'm too lazy to use the mouse.
I don't believe it's to get users comfortable with Microsoft's interface on mobile offerings though that is clearly a side-effect.
It's not the only example of critical core functionality being hidden and undiscoverable by default, but it's certainly the most glaring.
How? Seriously?
I'm using both Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012 (same .. thing, for this comparison) and I fail to see what you mean.
In Windows 7 I did these steps to launch an application:
- Press 'Windows' (Super, whatever) button
- Type application name
- Enter
In Windows 8 / Windows Server 2012 I need these steps:
- Press 'Windows' (Super, whatever) button
- Type application name
- Enter
Yeah, the UI is different while I type. But it's on the same level as moving from Launchy on Windows XP to just using the start menu in Windows 7: The interface is really just presentation and not that relevant.
Metro isn't good for anything else, for all I can tell. There's no bait. It's .. useless. First thing to do is Windows/Super+D to get to the desktop. There you need Windows/Super for the 'launcher', Windows/Super + w for a launcher for the control panel/settings apps and Windows/Super + x (neat shortcuts, thing lean start menu) and Windows/Super + i (uhm.. For .. shutdown? That's what I use that for).
So as a user of two 'metro' platforms I disagree heavily with your opinion. I don't think that this is happening, I don't think that this could happen and I really, really doubt that someone placed a bet on this, coming from their mobile platform.
I am about as a hardcore Desktop user as it gets, I have a custom build pc with 3 screens, custom mouse & keyboard shortcuts, steam, Photoshop & Dreamweaver user, etc...
I've been using Windows 8 since the Developer previews, and while some things have taken a while to get used to(like the hot corners), I'd have to say overall Windows 8 is a step up from Windows 7 in every way, I would hate to go back to 7. The Start Screen makes the Start Menu seem archaic.
Some pics of my setup:
http://i.minus.com/iqRDyV3Cdz4M3.jpg
http://i.minus.com/iUyzL0SkQgSD5.jpg
FWIW, metro apps are not fully featured but rather feature crippled. Take Chrome's metro version for example. It is just the forced-fullscreen version of the desktop one. You can still open insane amount of tabs.
This isn't a technical issue per se, since it would be possible to produce these apps for the desktop.
But there is already one integrated into Windows 8, there is also sharing and searching integrated
Sharing
http://i.minus.com/ixWDWz6QqMRvG.jpg
Searching
http://i.minus.com/ieIlX6e9QyL16.jpg
shifting search to a different app/service with a click
http://i.minus.com/i8CxZ5i2wILEW.jpg
I'm not trying to become the Windows 8 advocate here but just showing how it has utility and value in many uses for me.
Out of curiosity, is there anything the hot corners can do that you can't do using the Windows key launcher?
* Start Screen(lower left or Windows key)
* Recent/Running Metro apps(upper left or Win & Tab) http://i.minus.com/iD8rJOYWLWoHU.jpg
* Charms bar (upper or lower right or Win & C) http://i.minus.com/iKqyzIcITSAfB.jpg
Back to your original point though, I would suggest trying it out for a week or so. I was hesitant as well, but so far it seems very natural and fluid to me. Even scrolling sideways to see more tiles just feels very natural.
Yes, this. I love that all are converging on a keyboard-centric UI. This is sort an unreported event, overshadowed by the Metro and Unity rucus, and probably not important to the mainstream, but as a power user I'm really glad to see it finally happening.
I'm using various versions of Windows 8 on various machines: Release Preview at home and RTM at work. While most of my work is on the desktop, I have gradually reformed my start menu into groups of different concepts.
The different groups I'm using, in order, from left-to-right:
* The store, desktop and various super-commonly used tools such as remote desktop and web browsers.
* A few "neat to look at 'real quick" live tiles, including Finance and Weather.
* Development tools and communication programs, so Lync and Visual Studio and Fiddler.
* Misc SDET specific tools
* Another group with all of the repositories I work with
* Windows 8 apps that I've bought/downloaded from the store for various reasons
In all, I can see 41 app tiles without scrolling, both large and small, all of them are easily identifiable and relatively easy to reach. Since they are all large buttons (compared to your normal start menu shortcuts), I can swing my mouse over toward them, rather than dexterously follow a series of menus. It's different, but relatively easy. For my work, I would liken it to pressing [windows] + D to see the desktop, clicking on an icon and then having that different application load.
Honestly, I've grown to like it.
Window Key + "Su" + Enter -> Sublime Text 2 is open
vs.
Mouse over on the bottom left of the screen + Click + Wait for Metro interface to pan into view + Wheel over a horizontally scrolling screen of tiles scanning for a "Development Tools" group + Find Sublime Text 2 + Click -> Sublime Text 2 is Open
My common experience is to press the windows key and mouse around to click. While I proudly tout myself as a keyboard-primary user (and this is still the case. I use the keyboard as my sole tool in many more cases than some of my co-workers), I still happen to use the mouse from time to time and this is an example of it.
Also, when you're using an interface that has such accessible buttons, you tend to learn the general area of buttons, so it's not so much "scanning" as it is "oh yeah, that one repository is about here on the screen, let me swing my mouse over there and click it". The large buttons, again, help make that easier;* so, I don't quite have the same experience.* *
For my less-commonly used applications, I do follow the [windows key] enough text to load a program, usually the whole first word in its name because I type around 90-100 wpm and it's easier for me to type words than sub-sequences of letters [enter]; but it's rather surprising how much I've found myself actually adding apps to the start menu because I find clicking easier. Again, this is just from my personal experience, YMMV.
* I'm not a usability engineer, but I've read an article or two that talks about how difficult actions are for a user, and precision vs speed comes up.
edit:
* * As an example of this experience in progress, you probably know where commonly-clicked icons are on your desktop, if you happen to use your desktop to hold frequently edited documents or shortcuts. If someone re-arranged your icons, you'd be slower because they would no longer be in their previous, familiar locations.
>Mouse over on the bottom left of the screen + Click + Wait for Metro interface to pan into view
Window Key + "Su" + Click Sublime Text 2 -> Sublime Text 2 is open
EDIT: sukuriant has informed me that actually you can still just press Enter. So it's EXACTLY the same as before!
In practice, I find seeing so much quite overwhelming. Is seeing 41 app tiles - many animated - actually a good thing? My ability to scan and make sense of the Start Screen is quite low. I find it grades on my senses as time passes and every visit to the Start Screen becomes less and less pleasant.
And regarding scrolling, on the desktop are we not used to vertical scrolling? I find it odd when my vertical scroll wheel action results in a horizontal scroll. It's harder to scan while scrolling.
Lastly, regarding have to "dexterously following a series of menus" using a mouse - is it really that hard? Did the MS research say users are unable to use a mouse effectively? I assumed the tiles are huge because a finger is much larger than a mouse pointer, and the Start Screen UI is designed as a touch-first experience.
That said, in my experience, I've only been confused/disoriented/had my senses degraded from looking at too much data when all the tiles are unorganized. If you have a single, giant group with 40 or 50 or who knows how many tiles, and they're all random, that would be, to me, a very confusing scenario. Indeed, if all the tiles I have on my start screen were all in the same group, I'd be confused; but, with groups, they're very easy to distinguish and differentiate. Again, it's like having many many icons on your desktop; or, having icons on your desktop grouped into clusters.
Scrolling. My start screen I try not to scroll. I personally feel that if you're scrolling on your start screen, you're taking too much space and you should tone down the number of quick-access apps you have -- you probably don't use all of them with regularity. That's my personal, private opinion. I am not on the team that worked on the Windows 8 user interface, so I have no idea. That said, I don't know why we're doing horizontal scrolling versus vertical scrolling and anything I said here would be pure speculation. In a column-friendly format, like the start screen, it's not that disorienting, though, because information naturally becomes columns versus rows. That could have been a design feature that came from the horizontal scrolling, I certainly don't know.
As far as the "Dexterously follow a series of menus" and the big buttons on the start menu are concerned, I have to put a disclaimer here: I only have as much knowledge on this as has been displayed on the internet from Microsoft, I wasn't a part of that team. BUT, I do have a grandfather; and I can anecdotal-ly remember him trying to maneuver his mouse and occasionally losing it in menus or miss-clicking because his hand would shake. As computer scientists and engineers and computer/modern-tech savvy people, our hands and fingers are more dexterous than others, I imagine, because we use them for these meticulous tasks all day long. For use cases like that, this new, large-button interface would probably be much easier. I have not had a chance to let him test the UI, so I can't say; and as my co-workers often remind me, my needs and wants are, often, not normal to computer users at large, so I could be very off.
One thing I've learned while designing UIs is that if it takes a techy X amount of time to figure something out, it takes between X * 10 to X * 100 for a regular person, so you really want to aim for a super super intuitive interface; and they won't try forever.
Because Microsoft is getting ready for the future, where non-PC computing devices will be far, far, far more important to most peoples' lives than PCs.
Windows 8 is the beginning of Microsoft's play to be on those devices. That means that design considerations to make it work nicely on "post-PC" devices take precedence over design considerations to make it work on PCs.
Windows 8 isn't a PC operating system with device-friendly concessions bolted on. It's a device operating system with PC concessions bolted on. The idea presumably is that the PC desktop piece of it will get smaller and less important as time goes on, then eventually become completely redundant and easy to drop altogether.
In other words, the plan is to do to the WIMP interface what they did with the CLI interface of MS-DOS. Its death will be slow, quiet, and (they hope) painless. But it is definitely going to die.
Also? With the "metro" interface as part of the core OS, they're basically forcing manufacturers to start including touchscreens in laptops and to start selling touchscreen monitors. Which isn't exactly bad for manufacturers since it means people will want to upgrade.
Those are my opinions, at least. Personally, I agree that without a touchscreen, the new interface is annoying.
Just like people clamoured for 3D, right?
You can't force consumers to appreciate a feature by just insisting it's better. Touch screens won't move laptops just like they don't move all-in-one desktops right now.
Nobody wants to manipulate an upright screen with an outstretched arm. It's a completely unnatural thing to do, and the complete opposite of everything we've learned about the UX. Your hands need to resting when you're operating, or else all you're thinking about is when you'll be able to rest your hands.
Hence why some OEMs are offering convertible laptops and all-in-ones, which actually look pretty nice and should complement the new interface nicely.
[1] XPS 27 Touch All-in-one: http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-one-27-2710-aio-t/pd
[2] XPS 12 Convertible: http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-12-l221x/pd?~ck=mn&~ck=mn&#...
I want to hate on it but its actually pretty good.
The metro UI is great for these tasks. It's easy to understand in the current tablet paradigm and those common uses across all users means Microsoft has actually simplified a large percentage of the use cases. Don't tell me you can look at a metro homescreen and not know what to do.
Now, for those of us on HN (I suspect the majority are programmers or sysadmins, or somebody else who wants/needs to get into the guts of the OS), they've got the old familiar WIN32 based OS behind the Metro UI.
Essentially, I suspect the challenge is that it will feel a bit like desktop stuff is virtualized, as I don't think you're running Metro & desktop apps side-by-side (but I don't know as I haven't used Win8 yet).
The important thing to realize is that Microsoft won't be around in a few years if they only catered to those people who are comfortable with the old desktop.
We're getting touchscreens on computers now, and Kinect interfaces I'm sure aren't far behind. The desktop will remain for the small percent of us that use it for work, but I wouldn't be surprised if I use metro much of the time. My concern is how am I going to feel jumping back and forth.
Personally I don't understand this concept of forcing a clunky and strange UI on people and having change just for the sake of change. Both suffer from huge amounts of backlash, yet their creators stand by it, for one simple reason: They have to change, so things don't appear stale. These interfaces aren't better, they're just new.
It's really that simple, we've had 10 years of the same type of interface in Windows, Linux and OSX and they need something new. Apple of course knows they have something good with OSX and are unwilling to slap their users in the face, and they generally don't fix what is broke.
Welcome to development, where anything over 24 months is old news and needs to be made different. Not better, just different.
It's kind of a plague in the industry. Things change just for the sake of it. I'm all for changing to make things better, but a large sect of development seems obsessed with new just because... new.
Didnt we just read an article yesterday about how this isnt true? WinRT is built on top of win32, not parallel.
Another blog that says the same - http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/sasha/archive/2011/09/15/...
The new Task Manager looks great though, and the document history might be proven to be useful.
I think I'll wait Windows 9 to upgrade my desktop & laptop.
There might be an option in the settings menu, but most time I want it to reboot automatically. Occasionally I would like to defer that for another 15 minutes.
Most people never update their Windows PCs and they end up using a PC with bugs and performance issues that have long been fixed and security holes you could drive a truck through, I'm glad automatic updates are now turned on by default and that you also have to option to opt out.
Forcing a reboot is great. Forcing a reboot without letting me defer for a few minutes is not. A better middle ground, the one I fought for at work, is to defer the reboot until the user is asleep.
That's fine and all, but if I want to defer a reboot, I should have that choice. The system can nag me all it wants, I'll eventually give in and reboot, but at a time of my own choosing.
Maybe I'm running low on battery power. Or taking a test. Or in a conference call with an important customer. Or just having a good ol' time raiding with my guildies. Its my computer, it should be my decision no matter what.
Windows 95 could run for 45 days before crashing. Out of the box, it looks like Windows 8 won't be able to manage that feat, with Patch Tuesdays every month.
90% of the updates I have received haven't required a reboot.
Windows 8 also warns the user on the lock screen during the three days that a reboot is necessary/impending like so http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communit...
That is a tenuous description of "authorization." The user is asked once when they set up their computer whether automatic updates should be enabled and the downsides are not outlined. It is strongly "recommended."
On the plus side, Windows 8 is handling it much better.
From here http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/11/14/minimizing-res...
"WU will consolidate all the restarts in a month, synchronizing with the monthly security release. This means that your PC will only restart when security updates are installed and require a restart. With this improvement, it does not matter when updates that require restarts are released in a month, since these restarts will wait till the security release. Since security updates are released in a single batch on the second Tuesday of every month, you are then getting essentially one restart a month."
Microsoft gets a lot of UI policy stuff wrong, but the way the updates worked in Vista and 7 were just about ideal. It's so good, I wish the Vista/7 Windows Update mechanism could roll in updates for non-MS products as well, because the MS update works so much more seamlessly than (for example) the Adobe updater, the Mozilla updater, the Google updater, the Garmin updater, etc. And it would be far less irritating and confusing to have one update system running than five.
I don't understand how this "no-postponement is possible" scenario is an improvement.
I created a couple of the icons myself for FreeCell and Spider Solitaire(spider&crown).
The icons in the icon pack are like a breathe of fresh air and I may use some myself. Thanks for sharing.
c:\> net stop wuauservShutdown -a didn't work either.
There's also a registry key..
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate\AU
Dword: NoAutoRebootWithLoggedOnUsers: 1
Here is the full path, pretty straight-forward.
Local Computer Policy
+ Computer Configuration
+ Administrative Templates
+ Windows Components
+ Windows Update
+ No auto-restart with logged on users for scheduled automatic updates installations
+ EnabledAfter using Win 8 for a few weeks now, this article confirmed some of the things I was seeing, but not sure if it was just me seeing a new shiny toy or it really was happening.
The two things I've already noticed are it starts up a lot faster, and comes back from sleep a lot faster as well. It's also a lot more stable. Almost no crashes when I was running several Adobe apps at the same time. I'm running with 4GB RAM and was impressed with the performance. I can only imagine how well it would run under a much faster processor and even more RAM. The real winners will be desktop users for sure.
Losing the Start button was not a huge issue. I use an app launcher and just hitting the WIN button takes you to the main metro screen with all your apps. It's not hardly as confusing as everybody is crying about.
I'll definitely go check it out at some retailer to see if I think I can get over (or minimize) the horrid multi-tile slate touchpad-friendly floating window interface.
The same could be said about a few milliseconds when loading a web page; but Google Chrome does really weird (but awesome!!) network adapter/caching hacks to get those few milliseconds, and many people are grateful for it.
And, 5 seconds on newer machines is a lot more time on older machines.
(Disclosure, since the topic is on it: Microsoft employee. The remarks are my own, not the company's, blah blah)
Why should it require a command line statement with three switches to simply shutdown?
I know theoretically this shouldn't happen, but it does happen all the time - I've not yet seen a system that I've really never ever needed to reboot (excluding my toaster), and previous Windows have not been the least offenders in this regard, so I have no confidence that Windows 8 will be the first where I don't need it.
That's what the reboot option is for. Can you explain the problem again?
"By installing Windows 8, companies will implicitly force its employees to use a new interface that could severely dent productivity. "
This is, by far, the biggest issue with Windows 8. And, at least for me, the most confusing aspect of Microsoft's decision making process.
I would be surprised if ANY business with more than two employees willingly shifts their PC's to Windows 8. Imagine having one hundred employees grind to a halt due to the UI shift. Deadly.
I would really love to have the opportunity to hear from Microsoft on this one. Why is it that we don't even have an option to disable Metro (or tablet mode, or whatever they want to call it) on a desktop system? What was the logic behind that decision, if any?
Also, completely unrelated: I hope that 'single keypress' for resetting your PC to a blank slate is somewhat exaggerated. If it isn't, leaving your PC alone for seconds becomes truly dangerous (yes, technically there is no difference; giving anybody local access to your PC puts your files at risk, but having a system make vandalism easier? I sure hope it asks for your password first)