Continuing the Windows 8 vision with Windows 8.1
blogs.windows.com
blogs.windows.com
Its my No3 son's 14th birthday and he has gathered enough money for a new PC. He wants a new one for school and games. He is not some geek programming whiz kid. He "uses" a computer, he "consumes" the internet. He is, in short, a mere kid user. He already owns a laptop with Windows 8.
The discussion on spec and costs comes round to the operating system. Exact quote: "I don't want windows 8, its a load of complete sh... crap. I'd rather have Windows 7".
Kinda took me by surprise. I assumed being a kid he'd like and want the newest, latest, whizzy thing. But no. Even a 14yo lad who is not a geek doesn't want Windows 8, even after using for many months.
I reckon that is pretty damning.
On the me front, I have never discussed or commented on it to or with him. Frankly, such discussion would bore him senseless. The discussion about the PC spec, which was me trying to match budget with expectation, was hard work!!! But, the one thing he jumped on was not AMD v Intel, not RAM or disk size, not graphics card chip set, its was no Windows 8.
As for usage v PR, all I can say is that, as I tried to point out with my not geek comment, he is not in circles where things like OS's and PC specs are important. He not a computer person. As I said, he is a consumer, not a creator or hacker. The tech details are as important to him as the tech details of a TV or stereo. Basically, does it do what I want? See what I mean?
Also, he has used Windows 8 for months on his laptop. Plenty of time to get over initial shock and simply get used to it. Well, clearly, he hasn't.
So, in his case, I would say his rejection of Win8 is experienced based and genuinely his own.
Think fashion.
Totally useless counter-anecdote to illustrate: I'm not much older than your son, I do program and tinker around with stuff and use command lines etc. but prefer Windows 8 over Windows 7. According to your logic that should not be possible, since if even your son doesn't like Windows 8, how can someone more technical than him like it?
BTW I don't care much for the Metro interface. It's barely usable on tablets but totally worthless on a desktop. However that doesn't make the desktop any worse – only the Start menu is missing, which I haven't used in Windows 7 either. Otherwise the desktop environment is another solid Vista-to-7 like improvement, though this fact usually gets lost in all the "OMG what is this Start screen" noise.
I've had Windows 8 installed on my desktop PC since it came out as I took advantage of their cheap upgrade offer from Windows 7 (I'd not of paid full price for it). So here are my thoughts on the improvements in Windows 8.1 as someone who uses it on a desktop, with a keyboard and mouse.
Personalization: The only time I ever see the new start menu is when I quickly press Start and begin typing the name of some application I want to launch. I've never rearranged any of the tiles and my screen is always off when I'm at the lock screen so a slideshow on the lock screen is totally useless for me.
Search: "It is the modern version of the command line" What? How is a integrated desktop and web search a modern version of the command line. That makes no sense. I'd never use this new functionality anyway since I don't use Bing and I can easily access google from my always open web browser.
Apps and Windows Store: Never used any metro apps or installed anything from the Windows Store. I don't really feel that any of the metro apps have taken any thought for those who are not using a touch interface.
Cloud Connectivity: "In Windows 8.1 your files can be saved directly to SkyDrive, so you can always have your files with you." Wait, you could not do this before Windows 8.1? I've never used SkyDrive but it seems silly to me that you can now only just save your files directly to SkyDrive.
PC Settings: I can use the control panel just fine.
Internet Explorer: More frequent versions of IE seems like a good thing, although I'd be more interested in the details of what is new generally rather than just the new features for what seems to be the metro version.
Better Mouse and Keyboard Options: I see two minor tweaks, there is now a windows logo and I can now configure what happens when I place my cursor in different corners. How are these better options for keyboards and mouses?
I don't get it, they seem to be ignoring their whole previous customer base; those who used Windows on their non-touch desktops and laptops. Sure, I understand that these improvements will most likely be useful for those who use Windows on their touch based device but these people are surely in the minority so why focus the content of your "new features" announcement for the minority?
This is what frustrates me also.
I've had Windows 8 installed since (almost) day one on my desktop. I also have a Surface (that hasn't been touched in months, oops).
MS was accused for years of advertising Windows' touch capabilities without actually putting any real thought into them. Windows 7 had some vaunted touch-compatibility changes which really just amounted to increasing the spacing between some buttons. This made them very hard to touch accurately, instead of impossible to touch accurately. Needless to say, people who were hoping for a touch-capable Windows were sorely disappointed.
And now it looks like the pendulum has swung fully the other way. We have an OS that works great on a touch device, and basically doesn't work on a traditional mouse + keyboard device.
No, seriously. I've met people who used Win8 regularly who didn't know that each app had a bottom bar - and how could they, there's zero discoverability around it, even though critical app functionality is often contained in that bar. (It's Windows+Z btw, that or a magical incantation of mouse movements).
On a touch device it's a simple swipe up from the bottom. Beautiful.
It still befuddles me every day that MS was willing to ship something that was so fundamentally unfriendly to mouse and keyboard users. How anyone at MS could look at the mouse gestures to trigger critical UI elements and call them acceptable... I just don't know.
It seems to me that MS has bought fully into the doom and gloom re: the future of computing. The zeitgeist is that in the long run laptops and desktops will stop existing entirely and almost everyone will be using tablets instead. The sales numbers for both iOS and Android tablets support this, but it's hard to say where the equilibrium point will fall.
It makes sense that, strategically, MS wants to transition Windows from a mouse-first to a touch-first UX, but this transition is awful.
But regardless, as someone who uses the keyboard a lot Windows 8 is slightly better than Windows 7 for me (e.g. Win+X for quick access to administrator tools).
That's where the current MS problem lies.
If by magical incantation of mouse movements, you mean a right click?
Also, take into account that this isn't "All Windows 8.1 changes". They probably have more to show for non-touch users, but this is what users were complaning about (Start button, Metro multitask...), and as Paul Thurrott unveiled most of these features [1] yesterday I imagine they decided to confirm them and get a bit of good press.
[1] http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/blue-start-experience-chan...
I have no financial interest in StarDock.
The start screen's the same for me, mostly, except I also click on "Weather" and occasionally use the Trackage app.
While I don't think the Metro interface is the solution for everything or even a primary direction to go in (I'm in desktop mode 98% of the time) I also think putting a start menu back in is a step in the wrong direction.
While it may be physically small on screen, is not an insignificant change in functionality.
Really, why stop there - let's bring back the Program Manager!
Why does it matter why they want it if enough people request it? It was removed and the response was to ask for it back. It's not like new functionality is being requested. It's a feature that has been a part of Windows for several generations of the product. There seems to have been little or no benefit in its removal. If the change confuses the customer, then it's likely a mistake. If the change removes or hides expected functionality, then it's likely a mistake.
Considering that people have been using commercial and free utilities to restore the functionality, it doesn't seem a significant thing to put it back. Microsoft could just bundle one of them with an install of Win8 and do nothing at all.
Finally, if enough people request a feature such as Program Manager, you're darn tootin' you should consider implementing it. The biggest failure of Microsoft concerning Win8 is the simple fact that they decided to ignore user feedback it was getting during the beta phase.
So the options today are fine, for my usecase, and I'm hard pressed to accept that the old solution was better in general.
- Pin programs to the taskbar - Use shortcuts for common/important stuff (Win+i, Win+x, Win+w, Win+f are the ones I need) - Use the type to complete thing otherwise
Most users I know moved to that workflow anyway, before Windows 8 (the start menu entry on previous Windows versions. Spotlight or maybe QuickSilver before that on OS X. Unity / Gnome Shell on Linux).
In my opinion the start menu needed constant micro-management and was a hassle.
(Disclaimer: I'm not happy with the ui formerly known as Metro, but I do like the 'type to launch' approach a lot)
You can also use Win+Number to switch right to the taskbar program. quite convenient although I prefer using cap locks + home row keys to switch apps on the mac.
>>Most users I know moved to that workflow anyway, before Windows 8 (the start menu entry on previous Windows versions. Spotlight or maybe QuickSilver before that on OS X. Unity / Gnome Shell on Linux).
I agree. But if your workflow is shortcuts + quick search to open everything else it doesn't really matter if you use a start menu, something like metro or the mac os x dock.
But I think that if you are asking what is good enough for 90% of our users, is easily discoverable and reduces confusion it is hard to beat the start menu + taskbar. It isn't really a question of functionality, all you are doing is managing graphical icons that launch programs. The key should be reducing confusion for users who will use the program launcher for everything they do. I don't hear a lot of people arguing that the metro launcher was something that microsoft should have done without a focus on touch.
A simple "Sorry, we screwed up" would be nice to hear, rather than the "Advancing forward into the bright future, we added a Start Button^H^H^H^H^H^H Tip"
Let's put it another way: The moment that I hear the next version of Visual Studio /requires/ Win8 or its ilk to run, I'm looking hard at moving everything I do to Linux.
That being said, why not move to Linux now? Ubuntu and many other distributions are already excellent desktop environments and are great for programming. What sort of work are you doing? You're probably either stuck in Windows, or you may as well move now.
Once (A) is gone, it's a powerful incentive to look seriously at Windows as a going concern.
But on a serious note I'm glad they're focusing on improving usability.
Microsoft's releases have always been like this, release something that changes things drastically (either under the hood or visually), and often breaks things or makes people mad because they don't like change. Then spend an enormous amount of time refining it in a subsequent release until everyone wonders how they ever used the old version. Frankly, I like their release style and wish more companies would follow suit. It allows them innovate on a predictable schedule, while giving those people who hate change, plenty of time for it to sink in and come around.
I must say that I am not a fan of metro on the desktop either after using Windows 8 since release, but I knew the refinements would come and these changes are making it look great and finally are starting to show where they set their sights from the start.
Looking forward to using windows 8.1 on a haswell based ultrabook with touch.
Microsoft just doesn't care about its users. But it should!
Such grandiose shifts also smack of hubris: "Users be damned, we know what's best for them! Apple did it! So can we!" The problem with this is that Microsoft has always suffered a lack of holding design up to primary importance, and this is again the case here.
Enjoying OS X Snow Leopard on my rMBP where I have zero issues with the OS getting in the way of my daily activities. Had to deal with Win7 and then -- briefly -- Win8 for the first few months of this year, and I was positively floored by how much the OS got in the way of doing things. I am skeptical that simply making refinements will fix what appears to be a fundamental problem.
Gmail, Facebook, iCloud and Siri have way more users than Windows 8 does. The last two are in their entirety beta products. The first two have introduced major changes that didn’t turn out great. Even when Google rolls out a new version of Gmail in phases, it easily covers more users than Windows 8 (which has about 60 million users).
People who are using tablets don't want to look at grainy big screens. These screens look blurry. Stop in any store and check out the all-in-one Win 8 touch desktops. Their screens are awful.
And yes blah blah blah higher-res NON-touchscreen with mouse -- but going back to a mouse after touch? That's another step back.
Haswell reportedly has enough power in the GPU to support high res screens using just the integrated graphics - so we should see better screens in 2013 H2. Samsung and others have already announced some incredible laptop screens for upcoming devices.
The longer lifespans of PCs and laptops combined with the popularity of smartphones and iPads is a more likely reason for the drop off in sales.
Microsoft doesn't add anything new. Windows 95 was appreciably better at doing what people already did, there was reason to upgrade, and Windows XP took that even further. Ever since then they've been pretty rudderless. Windows 7 doesn't offer anything that Windows XP can't already do, apart from the new theming. At least it's inoffensive, though, and lets you do whatever you want to do without putting up a fuss.
Windows 8 is something nobody wants or needs, it's a very hard sell, and it's even more bizarre that Microsoft would be pushing so hard on touch into the market that least wants it: Corporate IT.
I said desktop. People sit further away from laptop screens and at a totally different angle. Win 8 emphasizes touch, and all the AIO touchscreen desktop screens I've seen are too grainy to look at compared to tablet screens. Even if the pixel count is the same as a laptop, the pixels, obviously, are a hell of a lot larger.
I hope this means that the main Start Screen search will now search across programs and settings. Makes it much easier for things that may or may not be settings or apps (Control Panel, Device Manager, Event Viewer, Disk Administration). That's been my #1 gripe with Win8 from day 1; they got rid of universal start menu searching.
This is similar to what Ubuntu users complained about when they included Amazon results in any searches.
Hopefully there will be an option to disable it and/or switch to another search provider.
While the search feature they're describing sounds cool, I'm curious as to what they mean by a "modern command line".
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/15297-if-i-had-asked-people-...
Here's my personal story with Windows 8. I built a PC about a month ago after using macs for several years. I'd heard all the horror stories about Win8 and was going to get Windows 7, but someone recommended that I get 8 instead, saying that it wasn't anywhere near as bad as people were saying.
They were right, it's not, though it does have more of a learning curve than it should.
I missed having a start menu at first, but that went away when I discovered I could easily launch apps or control panels in a similar way to how I did it on the mac. On the mac I used Quicksilver - I'd hit ctrl-space type a few letters of the name and hit enter to launch the app. On windows 8 you can do the same by hitting the windows key, typing a few letters and hitting enter. In addition, I have the applications I use most pinned to the taskbar.
I'd originally planned to install one of the 3rd party start menus, but ended up not needing to.
I assume they mean nothing more than that.
The search bar on the Windows 7 start menu does what they're talking about to some extent (though I'm betting not nearly as nicely, and it certainly doesn't return web results). I know I just hit Windows Key > first few letters of an application > Enter to launch several things on my Windows 7 machine already. Sounds like they're making a supercharged version of this for 8.1 that includes web results/Skydrive stuff and the like.
also, if i ever log in to windows 8 without waiting something like a minute, i always get boxes from something not working right when in some of the start menu screens and when trying to type things in with any IME. see: http://i.imgur.com/78SNnpB.png
sorry that my post turned into one big complaint. hopefully someone will show me some very simple fixes to my problems!
When an alternate OS runs all my tools and games, with 100% compatibility with my hardware, I'll give it a go.
- View all apps by swiping up
- No longer auto-put app tiles on my Start screen
- Improved windows store search
- Different size app multi-screening
- Boot to a different screen
- Change which screen 'Start' gets you to
- Edit functionality of corners
IE9 is the last version that runs on Windows Vista (as IE8 was the latest version to run on Windows XP.)
"The response to Windows 8 has been substantial"
substantial not positive, funny that!
Sure, they added a start button, why not? But they also made all the PC settings available from within the Metro environment. If the start button is a step backwards in direction, pushing further away from requiring the desktop is ten huge steps forward toward that vision.