Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeratcliffe | Hacker News Reader

Meh, the interface makes no sense without a touchscreen.

Exacerbating this is the fact that Windows 7 is arguably at full stride right now and has almost no points that I really want changed. Why then do I give myself (actually, pay for) a headache with this new release?

>> Exacerbating this is the fact that Windows 7 is arguably at full stride right now and has almost no points that I really want changed.

Sounds like another anti-innovation/change comment on hn. If this is not, please tell me how?

How is changing the desktop we currently have, which works for most people and everyone is used to, for a completely new system that is clearly meant for a device other than the PC, innovation?

Change != always good.

I think he was just pointing out that Hacker News can be somewhat schizophrenic on this topic. "WTF why won't Craigslist improve, it is anti-innovation" vs. "Why did MS change their UI?!?"

And yes, before someone makes the statement, HN is made up of individuals with their own opinions etc. etc.

I think the difference is between things that work don't need to be changed, just for the sake of change. Things that are broken, or suffer from poor usability should change. Not everything needs to change, but I think it's fair to want broken things to change without advocating that everything change just because.

But that's so short-sighted! You know what worked? The Motorola RAZR. But then the iPhone came out and it was a radical change and, even though many said at the time "I just need to make calls and text", it set the standard.

If your mentality is always "if it ain't broke don't fix it" then you're probably going to get disrupted. Windows 7 wasn't broke, but the future of the desktop environment looks like it might be, so Microsoft is trying to merge desktop and mobile. It may not work, but you must at least somewhat sympathize with their need to try.

Metro is no iPhone.

No, it doesn't need to be in order for the illustration to be apt. "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" is a mentality asking for disruption.

The argument isn't "If it isn't broke, don't fix it". It's that not all change is necessary (or even good). If something is clearly broken, by all means fix it. If it's not, then things get more complicated. Maybe a change is still in order (but maybe it's broken in a non-obvious way, like the Razr in a smart-phone world). The idea that change is always good and always a sign of progress is absolutely false.

I think everyone is getting stuck on the design decision concerning the start menu. Windows 8 is more than just a new start menu. There are a number of other changes that I believe sound very interesting, and are very much PC innovations and changes not made for tablets.

Innovation and change are not inherently good, but they are inherently risky and costly. This is especially true when it comes to the operating system on your main computer.

Change for the sake of being different is stupid and shows that you don't care about your current users. An improvement has to be worth the trouble of re-learning how to use the software and changing your habits. That's why the Ribbon got so much flak - it moved every button and ate up a lot more screen space, for relatively minor improvements to overall UI organization and discoverability.

The UI-formerly-known-as-Metro doesn't seem to offer even minor benefits to keyboard and mouse users. It's benefits to Microsoft are more clear, but that doesn't make the inconvience to users any less real.

This isn't change for the sake of being different, it's a radical (and risky) attempt at change such that the mobile and desktop environments become merged.

And you Microsoft Office ribbon example is great! That was another change that many saw as "change for change's sake", but it's become a UI function that the vast majority appreciate and depend on. I'm sure many of the HN crowd would have, or did, lambast the ribbon on introduction, and I'm equally sure many of them have come to love it. It sure didn't take me long.

well I don't particularly like it, but i manage.

the ribbon i think is far less of a drastic UI change then metro.

The ribbon was just changing the text menus to a persistent large tool bar with tabs. Metro is like bolting a touch interface overtop of the standard desktop interface and replacing the start menu with it.

I know what Microsoft's attempting to do with Metro. What I don't know is what benefit it will have for desktop users. Merging their touch and desktop visual styles might strengthen Microsoft's brand, but I've yet to hear any plausible theories for how it will benefit (or even not harm) usability for desktop users. There's decades of HCI research that says touch interfaces should be different from desktop interfaces. So what's the upside for users? Why should they accept Metro, if not just because Microsoft has a monopoly?

>This isn't change for the sake of being different, it's a radical (and risky) attempt at change such that the mobile and desktop environments become merged.

How does this benefit the actual customer? I don't have a tablet, and I'm not planning to buy one. It's great that Microsoft will only have one code base for the two platforms, but that's great for them, not for me.

Yessirree Bob, I remember what my rich uncle used to say. He said, "Son," (even though he was my uncle and not my father), "Son, if you really want to make money, forget all that stuff about finding a need and filling it. That's the old way. Everybody's doing that, and everything's been done. No, son, what you want to do is this. You want to find something that isn't broken, and fix it. That's where the big money is."

That is why I found the Win 8 announcement so weird originally. Why let it compete against Windows 7, which is to me the best version of the OS by a wide margin.

What else were they supposed to do? Let it compete against Windows 3.1 instead? Just not release it for another three years?

Well, maybe the second of those would have been a good idea: spend a few more years adding features and polish. But presumably they wanted basically that OS out there competing with iOS and Android. And perhaps they reckon more people will buy Surface and Windows Phone devices when the UI feels more familiar on account of using it on desktop and laptop computers.

And, actually, it's hard to see how Windows 8 would get more users, or make more money for Microsoft, if they wait three years instead of starting to sell it now and gradually improving it over those three years. I can see only one way: if the wait lets them make more radical changes that they can't apply to an OS that's already out there being used. But there's a limit to how much you can change at once without alienating everyone, and Windows 8 may be pushing it already.

Windows 8 is better than Windows 7 in every way. I have been running Windows 8 for two months and loved Windows 7 but would never go back.

> and has almost no points that I really want changed.

Most of the wealthy people in Europe probably felt that way in the 18th century about their society. But it's a good thing that this particular opinion is silly and holds no water, right? Something existing to your level of liking is perhaps the best reason to change it.

> Something existing to your level of liking is perhaps the best reason to change it.

This seems... ridiculous to me.

Computers are tools enabling us to do certain tasks with greater ease. If the computer does this fluidly and with minimal effort then it is a good tool. On the other hand, if a new version of the tool adds to the effort required to achieve the same or similar tasks then the new tool is not as good as the old.

This has nothing to do with resisting change, but resisting change for change's sake.

> If the computer does this fluidly and with minimal effort then it is a good tool

I strongly disagree that Windows 7 matches this description. I find managing windows to be very difficult, for example: no Always on Top, no Focus Follows Mouse, etc. Multiple monitor support is lacking (no option for second taskbar, etc.) Windows 7 also defaults to Reboot without explicit user permission. Some of this is fixed in 8, some of it is not. The point here is that Windows 7 is most definitely NOT "minimal effort" or "fluid". At least, not for me.

> On the other hand, if a new version of the tool adds to the effort required to achieve the same or similar tasks then the new tool is not as good as the old.

Is there any evidence that Windows 8 adds to the effort required to achieve the same task compared to Windows 7? I don't think so.

Also, huge swathes of the world are starting off their computing experience as Mobile-Only. Kenya has very few desktop computers as compared to cell phones, for example. Microsoft is preparing for the new paradigm while not forcing it on anyone (desktop mode, you could keep using Windows 7, etc).

The point is that just because the Windows-7-using elite of the world are happy right now DOES NOT mean that the product is good to leave as it is. There is huge room for improvement.

Oh wow, you're comparing the industrial revolution to a minor OS upgrade. I guess we feel the need for revolutions in our lives, but this is a bit too much.

I didn't intend on comparing to the industrial revolution specifically. I more meant it that the wealthy are happy and content with the way things are, the poor are not (and not merely because they are poor, but because there are better ways of doing things for everyone, not just the poor).

The comparison was meant to open the discussion to the idea that many of the world's future computer users are not familiar with, nor care about, the workflow in Windows 7. Windows 8 may be better for them to use.

The 40 dollar price point is probably less about convincing Windows 7 users to upgrade or purchase it in lieu of, as it is about getting Windows XP users to upgrade who would never upgrade to Win 7 at its current price point.

And concerning the the 15 dollar upgrade for recent purchases of PCs with Win 7 this is a quick little money grab by MS. They already sold the OEM the Win 7 license so they aren't cannibalizing any potential existing sales.

I actually agree and disagree. Disagree: I used the windows 8 RC for a while and I actually like it (The desktop portion, metro was a waste for a non-touch screen PC). The additions to the OS were absolutely worth while, especially at these prices. I would upgrade today, without any concern if....

Agree: It wasn't a headache:) I have 2 ATI 4870s in crossfire right now and the ATI drivers were not working well. A lot of stuff that worked on windows 7 was not working on windows 8. Granted, that was the RC, but I don't want to install and find out that it wasn't fixed. 2. Users need the option to opt-out of metro. Period (!).

I'm going to wait for SP1, allow developers to catch up a bit and then jump in. I really liked the speed and the additions made to windows 8, I just think it needs a little time mature.

Have you tried it?

I have.

The interface is freaking unusable.

It is like Microsoft decided to exit the desktop market with a bang.

"We are failing, and we are taking Windows with us".

There is no way out of the "metro" interface?

Clarification:

I assumed el_cuadrado was refering to metro being "unusable".

Is that true?

To run desktop apps, you can go to the desktop. I've been using it as my primary OS for several months now

Disclosure: MSFT Employee

I recently bought a laptop and it's the first time I've had windows on my home machine since 2004. Since it's only $15 to upgrade: Is it possible/easy to upgrade and go back to Windows 7 if I find it detestable?

Going back means using the restore disks or partitions that came with your computer, or installing fresh from a retail DVD of a previous OS. There's no "downgrade" process.

Of course, 1% of your time is spent in Metro if you use it on a desktop, and that's generally when you're searching for something.

To each his own I guess, the only time I ever use the Metro UI is when I'm searching for something, which usually consists of hitting the start button, searching "Chrome" (for google chrome) and then hitting enter. Any other time that I've used the interface it was just for development or testing. How often do you see yourself using it?

failing? MS has been holding 70% to 85% of the desktop market for decades, even by conservative estimates.

They also used to focus on the desktop market. Now they focus on the tablet market, to the point of sacrificing the desktop user experience to gain entrance to that market. That might prove to be a big mistake.

Windows XP - success

Windows Vista - failure

Windows 7 - success

Windows 8 - potential failure

Just following a pattern.

That pattern only holds if you think that the world started at Windows XP. Going back another few years:

Windows 3.1 - Success

Windows 95 - Success

Windows 98 - Success (moderate, whatever)

Windows NT 4 - Success

Windows Me - Failure

Windows 2000 - Success

We're talking about Microsoft here! What about DOS?

I was talking about Windows, actually. I do remember some versions of MS-DOS being marginally better than others, but I don't think it had any predictable cadence.

If you switch that metric from good/bad instead of success/failure, it makes more sense. Something doesn't have to have been objectively good to be sucessful.

Here's how I remember it:

3.1 was the first windows GUI for mass consumption, and was successful, and pretty decent for it's time.

95 was also succesful, but I remember it being very, terribly unstable. Moreso than 3.1.. i put it in the bad column based on that.

98 improved on this and added a lot. Good.

ME was utter dogshit.

Kernels changed from ME to XP, so I make the link there. Microsoft did provide a direct upgrade path from ME to XP.

XP was awesome

Vista was horrid.

7 was awesome

Now 8. If they continue the pattern, 8 will suck.

It seems like there's a micro pattern like "new UI paradigm" >> "polish and improve new UI". 98 improved on 95, 7 improved on vista, XP improved on 2K.

I see Vista characterized as a failure over and over again, and Win 7 as a success. Win 7 is somewhat better than Vista, but the distance between them isn't that great. Besides the fact that UAC prompts were more frequent in Vista, was there some particular problem with Vista?

For a year or two there I was running workstations with both, and didn't see much difference.

I think Vista took the heat for imposing security where none existed.

Do you feel like Vista ran slower than 7? That was my issue with Vista, the new design was fine, but it just seemed to run poorly compared to the speed of 7.

It's the little things that add up, Vista is like Win7 with an itchy wool sweater over top. Win7 refined UAC, the quicklaunch/taskbar is amazing and the running task previews actually work, the start menu app search is better, the system tray notifications can be more finely tuned, and it runs significantly better on mid/lower end hardware.

I hardly notice a difference between Vista post SP1 and Win 7.

Vista had teething problems early on which burnt a lot of people. Unfortunately, that's what seems to be stuck in everyone's minds.

I ran both Vista and Windows 7. As far as I was concerned, in terms of usability they are both pretty much the same as long as you turned indexing off on you Vista drives.

The simple pattern is a popular myth. For ex, you didn't list Longhorn (after XP) that was such a fiasco that after 3 years of development it was completely scrapped. This was an overly ambitious release with a new relational db filesystem (winfs), new graphics stack (avalon), and new networking stack (indigo). It didn't converge. The team forked Windows Server 2003 and rushed out Vista with as much of the intention (but not code) as it could from previous development. I was on the windows team from 98-11.

The interface is freaking unusable.

It's funny that I keep hearing people say this, yet hundreds of thousands of people are using it just fine before it's even released. A large number of them even using it as their daily OS. This indicates to me that it is usable. Perhaps by "unusable", some people really just mean "different than I'm used to"? Because to me, unusable means impossible to use, which we know isn't true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com