Gave windows 8 a proper try, still sucks

[cboath]

My hope is that W8 desktop will lead to many more apps for Windows 8 Mobile. My dream is for my PC, tablet and phone to seamlessly sync allowing me to view photos, watch movies, play games and pick up my web browsing on any of the three.

I believe that actually is the plan. I remember reading an MS article in the spring that said this should be possible using the internet linked login.

The article basically said that using the/a cloud service you could not only sync photos/music/etc, but also a roaming profile so that you had the same start menu/desktop across all linked devices.

It's been about a month since I installed it, but I believe it mentions something to that effect on the first boot where it asks you to pick a login name and whether its local or web based.

I just dont get the point of ranting and raving against microsoft for taking away the start menu, but then refusing to install one of the many simple 3rd party tools that give you back your classic desktop, and more. ?? The whole point of using windows is so you can hack it and mod it and make it more how you want. Why not just use apple if you refuse to tweak?

I agree. I'm actually in the camp of the last few posts that didn't like it the first time I used it (CP) and then went back last month with the RTM and have actually liked it. There were a handful of things that bothered me (a lot) in the CP that all seem to have been addressed by RTM making it much better. I think of the start screen more of just an 'all programs' replacement and heads up display.

 

[HeXen]

I just dont get the point of ranting and raving against microsoft for taking away the start menu, but then refusing to install one of the many simple 3rd party tools that give you back your classic desktop, and more. ?? The whole point of using windows is so you can hack it and mod it and make it more how you want. Why not just use apple if you refuse to tweak?

i think only the enthusiasts even bother to tweak. We are a very small percentage.
If you sat your mom or some random average joe in front of W8 and say "ok, now make it look and function like Windows 7" i think you might want to watch a few movies and check back...in a couple years. By then they may finally decide to at least tweak the shutdown button so its on their Metro screen, assuming they don't go back to W7 first. Most average people don't even mess with the wallpaper much.

Then there is the issue of W8 having the feel of a split personality. Its like running W7 and Gnome shell side by side at once. apps for each are different and neither interface even resembles the other.

Speaking of resemblance, MS could have at least changed the Vista icons to some Metro style ones, so at least there is some feeling of a theme between them.

Another is the fact that desktop only has a small few exclusive features, realistically they could have made the Start Screen with those features and it would at least look more seamless OR make the Metro Tiles slide on and off the desktop screen instead, either way the 2 UI's need to find common ground visually.

Last, moving the mouse from one far end to open start, then to the extreme other to open charms and back to the extreme opposite end to open running apps isn't exactly the most efficient thing one could do.

 

[Spjut]

I just dont get the point of ranting and raving against microsoft for taking away the start menu, but then refusing to install one of the many simple 3rd party tools that give you back your classic desktop, and more. ?? The whole point of using windows is so you can hack it and mod it and make it more how you want. Why not just use apple if you refuse to tweak?

I don't want to have to rely on 3rd party tools to have my OS working as I want to, especially not when I'm fully comfortable with how the GUI has been from Win95 to Win7

In its current state, I won't get Win8 no matter what, because I don't want to support Microsoft's direction.
Low sales can be pretty effective in making companies listen

 

[cboath]

i think only the enthusiasts even bother to tweak. We are a very small percentage.
If you sat your mom or some random average joe in front of W8 and say "ok, now make it look and function like Windows 7" i think you might want to watch a few movies and check back...in a couple years. By then they may finally decide to at least tweak the shutdown button so its on their Metro screen, assuming they don't go back to W7 first. Most average people don't even mess with the wallpaper much.

Then there is the issue of W8 having the feel of a split personality. Its like running W7 and Gnome shell side by side at once. apps for each are different and neither interface even resembles the other.

Speaking of resemblance, MS could have at least changed the Vista icons to some Metro style ones, so at least there is some feeling of a theme between them.

Another is the fact that desktop only has a small few exclusive features, realistically they could have made the Start Screen with those features and it would at least look more seamless OR make the Metro Tiles slide on and off the desktop screen instead, either way the 2 UI's need to find common ground visually.

Last, moving the mouse from one far end to open start, then to the extreme other to open charms and back to the extreme opposite end to open running apps isn't exactly the most efficient thing one could do.

That's probably the best critique i've seen on it so far.

I think MS wants the general populace to use it more with the metro apps and less so the desktop portion of things. That and it's a way of getting their tablet functionality in front of a large user base so getting a windows tablet is a much easier choice. That's a guess on my part, though.

It really is two separate UI's. One for Apps and the other for whatever you run from the desktop.

It's odd since you can never take the desktop away. I can't imagine programming anything really, from an 'app' and not a full on program on a desktop. You need a windowed setup, really, to do so. This is why I tend to think it's a way of getting it in front of a lot of people and letting them know they'll be able to use the windows phone/tablet in conjunction with their pc. It's much less of an issue for me, though, because I don't use any apps at this point. I just don't see any need for them. All the other programs are still there, you just have to chance the associations and your images and music go back to WMP, for example.

 

[Pretty Cool]

If you say only enthusiasts even bother to tweak, then there are lots of them out there because the default browser in Windows has barely over 50% market share on the desktop. How about media players, file managers, archive managers, and so on? I find it hard to believe that nobody ever uses any of these 3rd party solutions. Adding an alternative start menu is nothing more than installing a program in which you feel more comfortable using. Since people are already doing it, I do not see what the big difference is.

 

[Tom]

If you say only enthusiasts even bother to tweak, then there are lots of them out there because the default browser in Windows has barely over 50% market share on the desktop. How about media players, file managers, archive managers, and so on? I find it hard to believe that nobody ever uses any of these 3rd party solutions. Adding an alternative start menu is nothing more than installing a program in which you feel more comfortable using. Since people are already doing it, I do not see what the big difference is.

Lots of pc makers include other browsers with their systems. And just updating Java, Apple, or Adobe products can easily install browsers if users don't uncheck the defautl install boxes.

I don't think 50% of Windows users actively look for alternative browsers and install them.

 

[zephxiii]

Well i have been using it on an old thinkpad T60 and it is damn fast which is great. And by fast i mean not any slower than the previous OS....maybe even faster who knows. It just seems nice and lean...not like what we experienced with Vista.

One thing that is really bad is this split personality of having two worlds. One that does not belong on a laptop/desktop, but on a tablet. All this seems to do is get in the way of normal use and be really confusing to non-computer-savy people. I can already hear the complaints and bitching lol.

I think it is a major foul if they do not give us an option to disable the tablet world and just be a desktop with a regular start menu so we can go about our business without having to dance around this other thing that was never needed imo. And NO we should not have to rely on 3rd party software...that is really messed up.

We should have the builtin option to have thing the way it was and not be forced into some silly attempt at meshing two worlds.

Now I wouldn't mind so much if the Start Menu in 8 was just a new start menu. Problem is clicking on an app then running it in some tablet mode instead of just bringing it up in desktop mode (at least in my short experience). I don't want to *play* tablet on my laptop/desktop!

For a tablet, I like it.

ALL i really wanted was a refined Windows 7. Don't change it much but make it better and more awesome via subtle improvements. Damnit.

EDIT: Keep in mind i am only 15 minutes into this.

 

[Maximilian]

I don't think MS will allow for metro to be disabled until windows 9 when the dust has settled from their tablet/phone ventures. Even then there's no telling if they will give up on metro or not.

MS wants to get into mobile and tablet software in a big way, in my eyes they had two options with windows 8:

- Make it like windows 7, tried and true, no forced metro, pleasing the vast majority of desktop users, a shrinking market, but getting nowhere in the mobile/tablet space because people are already too familiar with android/iOS and their mobile efforts will go the way of zune/bob/bing etc.

- Make it like a tablet OS and force metro on their desktop users, maybe pissing off quite a few in the process. However that said the users will get familiar with the UI enticing them into buying windows 8 phones and tablets paving the way for MS taking a significant chunk of the growing mobile/tablet marketshare.

Allowing people to disable the lousy UI would defeat the purpose of them forcing it on users.

 

[daveybrat]

I absolutely hated Windows 8 when i first tried using it. Then i found about about Stardock's Start8 software and tried that out.

Wow, it actually makes Windows 8 usable again. No more metro at startup and my good old start menu and options back again.

The program is only $4.99 so i think i'll get it once 8 is released. Other than the god-awful Metro, which i can now fix with Start8, i really like the speed of Windows 8 and some of the new features.

 

[zephxiii]

I don't think MS will allow for metro to be disabled until windows 9 when the dust has settled from their tablet/phone ventures. Even then there's no telling if they will give up on metro or not.

MS wants to get into mobile and tablet software in a big way, in my eyes they had two options with windows 8:

- Make it like windows 7, tried and true, no forced metro, pleasing the vast majority of desktop users, a shrinking market, but getting nowhere in the mobile/tablet space because people are already too familiar with android/iOS and their mobile efforts will go the way of zune/bob/bing etc.

- Make it like a tablet OS and force metro on their desktop users, maybe pissing off quite a few in the process. However that said the users will get familiar with the UI enticing them into buying windows 8 phones and tablets paving the way for MS taking a significant chunk of the growing mobile/tablet marketshare.

Allowing people to disable the lousy UI would defeat the purpose of them forcing it on users.

The problem is that they could have a much better approach:

Have a primarily tablet version where the primary operating is "tablet" mode (metro)...with the ability to switch over to desktop mode and do desktop things.

Have a primarily desktop/laptop version where the primary operating is "desktop" mode with standard interface with the option to switch and just play in tablet mode.

Or have both in the same thing with a hot key that switches between the two. And what i mean is that, when you are in either mode, you are in that mode until u do that hotkey switch. Not like where I am in desktop mode, click on Chrome in the start menu and end up running chrome in tablet mode.

See it's like the metro start is cool for tablet mode, but for desktop mode we should have our own damn desktop start menu! I just don't want to be unwillingly switched into either modes.

Instead they went for the micky mouse combobulation of confusion of halfassed this or that.

 

[Doppel]

It is quite funny that people are using addons to make this thing' ui look like classic windows.

I have used all major versus of windows and when see demos of this I have no interest in its ui. But then frankly I have found xp totally intuitive also and generally don't like whatever enhancements win7 has put in--e.g. Open the control panel and you can't find sh*t without searching for it, which I hate.

Part of the problem is that xp was such a Damn good operating system that this is why so many millions are still using it. Microsoft has put themselves in the tricky position after finally releasing a good Os (xp) that they now keep trying to figure out ways to improve on near perfection and it is difficult.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/10/19/early-look-at-windows-8-baffles-consumers/?intcmp=features

It is true the point about complaints with existing windows. How many people really care, how many don't like their current windows?

 

[HeXen]

I think MS wants the general populace to use it more with the metro apps and less so the desktop portion of things. That and it's a way of getting their tablet functionality in front of a large user base so getting a windows tablet is a much easier choice. That's a guess on my part, though.
.

It's odd since you can never take the desktop away. I can't imagine programming anything really, from an 'app' and not a full on program on a desktop. You need a windowed setup, really, to do so.

i think you're right. I also think developers could just create a Live tile app, but when clicked launches a desktop application.

One thing i have wanted MS to do forever is lock developers out of the registry. Installing too many apps causes issues. Even portable apps have the ability to interact with other windows services and applications without using the registry. This would kill legacy unless they virtualized the registry? But i find its far better when they create all their configs, dependancies..etc in their specific app folder. i'm sure they could initiate a method to get the shortcut to the startscreen without an installer.
In fact, i'm 90% on portable apps, its all i try to use and have less performance issues over time doing it this way.

It is quite funny that people are using addons to make this thing' ui look like classic windows.

I have used all major versus of windows and when see demos of this I have no interest in its ui. But then frankly I have found xp totally intuitive also and generally don't like whatever enhancements win7 has put in--e.g. Open the control panel and you can't find sh*t without searching for it, which I hate.

Part of the problem is that xp was such a Damn good operating system that this is why so many millions are still using it. Microsoft has put themselves in the tricky position after finally releasing a good Os (xp) that they now keep trying to figure out ways to improve on near perfection and it is difficult.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/10/19/early-look-at-windows-8-baffles-consumers/?intcmp=features

It is true the point about complaints with existing windows. How many people really care, how many don't like their current windows?

For the general mass, its irrelevant except for the fact that so many have their early computing experiences on XP for such a long period of time. Its not because its the best UI, its because we are creatures of habit.
If Metro came out instead of XP..most would be fine. Actually XP as an OS itself wasn't really that good from a security standpoint.

 

[Tom]

XP was the last version of Windows that I felt I could really control and have it do what I wanted.

I adapted to Vista and Windows 7 but they make me do things that are a waste of time or not exactly what I want, particularly in terms of things like sharing, locking files based on ownership, uac, etc.

Those things are needed for some people but for me and I bet a lot of home users they just make life more complicated.

As for Windows 8, I don't see how it makes any sense to not have the Start menu that's been around since Windows 95.

I mean, is there some reason to not have it as an option, other than forcing users to adapt to something new ?

 

[zephxiii]

That's what makes me angry..... not having the option!

I hope sales are abysmal because of this lol.

 

[dagamer34]

I want to remind everyone that the Vista "failure" sold 300 million licenses, so those hoping sales are crap are... deluding themselves.

 

[HeXen]

I mean, is there some reason to not have it as an option, other than forcing users to adapt to something new ?

most likely because they know that very, very few would ever give Metro a chance. It would also be something they would forever have to provide, kinda like they still do with legacy stuff, so their forced to provide certain things.

I suspect the plan is longterm, to get developers into this new model so as to abandon the desktop entirely one day. Its entirely possible that you could have desktop applications like Photoshop in Metro, only much of the plugin's and stuff would be cloud based. There are some impressive and heavy duty apps and games done in web browsers, so perhaps a Live tile would be an interface to that as some of the non html5 and javascript stuff is done server side....but again i'm guessing.

 

[zephxiii]

I want to remind everyone that the Vista "failure" sold 300 million licenses, so those hoping sales are crap are... deluding themselves.

And 7 sold twice that amount thus it has set the bar. And i bet there will be plenty of people that will happily camp on 7.

 

[HeXen]

how many did ME sell?

i found this

In its first year Microsoft sold about 88 million retail copies of Windows Vista and an additional 40 million licenses

Microsoft sold about 400 million XP licenses during a time when about 730 million PCs were sold

Microsoft shipped only 47 Vista licenses for each 100 PC sold and there is the clear indication that Windows 7 is vastly more successful than Vista - not just in absolute numbers, but in a market share view as well. We don't know how many Windows 7 and Vista licenses went into upgrades, but given the fact that Vista could not impact Windows XP's market share, I tend to believe that Vista completely failed in the upgrade market and a good portion of Windows 7 shipments are in the upgrade cycle as XP PCs get old (or really old) and are being replaced (and Vista PCs are upgraded).

guess it depends on how you look at it.

 

[cboath]

You can only compare, from a sales standpoint, XP, Vista, and 7 at this point. Prior to XP, all versions were home or professional with different cores and functionality - they were actually two separate product lines.

I had no problems with vista to be honest. MS came out an said a year ahead of time that older hardware wouldn't work and you'd need stuff less than a year old. People tried to put it on older hardware and complained when it wouldn't work right. On top of that, vendors refused to even start creating drivers until after it went RTM meaning you had a lot of hardware that didn't have solid drivers until 6-12 months after release.

As for 8, if you don't like the metro apps, don't use them. Between the start screen and right clicking lower left corner, there's nothing from the start menu that isn't accessible in those ways. Plus, as it stands now, i've not heard a single complaint about 8 that wasn't said about going from 3.1/3.11 to 95. It's funny to think there were people who said no one wants a start button (there were).

 

[Instan00dles]

I don't understand why everyone is bitching about the missing start menu so much. Been using windows 8 for about a month now and have rarely needed to go to the full screen start menu at all, everything is either pinned to the task bar on the desktop or and icon. If I do need to use the new start menu for anything it is a hell of a lot faster to hit the windows key, click on the program icon and return to the desktop then going through many folders on the old start menu.

So far I have been loving windows 8, not necessarily any more then windows 7 cause I never really used the start menu there either. Only thing I have not liked so far is the metro apps for dealing with media. I dont want a full screen app for looking a pictures and listening to music like on my phone but I just had to change the default program and everything is good again.

 

[Tom]

I don't understand why everyone is bitching about the missing start menu so much. Been using windows 8 for about a month now and have rarely needed to go to the full screen start menu at all, everything is either pinned to the task bar on the desktop or and icon. If I do need to use the new start menu for anything it is a hell of a lot faster to hit the windows key, click on the program icon and return to the desktop then going through many folders on the old start menu.

So far I have been loving windows 8, not necessarily any more then windows 7 cause I never really used the start menu there either. Only thing I have not liked so far is the metro apps for dealing with media. I dont want a full screen app for looking a pictures and listening to music like on my phone but I just had to change the default program and everything is good again.

if you didn't use the Start menu of course you don't care.

I think a lot of people are more like me and use the Start menu a lot, and NEVER use the special Windoows keys on the keyboard.

 

[denis280]

Part of the problem is that xp was such a Damn good operating system that this is why so many millions are still using it. Microsoft has put themselves in the tricky position after finally releasing a good Os

I Agree with you

 

[dagamer34]

most likely because they know that very, very few would ever give Metro a chance. It would also be something they would forever have to provide, kinda like they still do with legacy stuff, so their forced to provide certain things.

I suspect the plan is longterm, to get developers into this new model so as to abandon the desktop entirely one day. Its entirely possible that you could have desktop applications like Photoshop in Metro, only much of the plugin's and stuff would be cloud based. There are some impressive and heavy duty apps and games done in web browsers, so perhaps a Live tile would be an interface to that as some of the non html5 and javascript stuff is done server side....but again i'm guessing.

Desktop will exist as long as Visual Studio exists, and I honestly don't expect Visual Studio to be a Metro app, it's too information-dense. And it's not as if Windows ever fully killed off it's DOS-roots. Command line still exists and there are lots of people who use scripts for important tasks instead of GUI tools.

 

[Lemon law]

Some folks will think Metro is fine. But for those who do not, they have no need to be pissed at 8 if they install Classic Shell as mentioned above since it will be almost like interacting Windows 7.

Microsoft never said they would ban 3rd party start menus. They said they are removing their own so no 3rd party could bring Microsoft's own Start Menu back. Anybody and his brother can create their own Start Menu if they want. So no. Start8 or Classic Shell are not hacks, nor will they stop working one day.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So bottom line in my mind, if you like metro, the Win 8 upgrade may be worth a single dime, but if you you don't like metro, upgrade anyway, because Microsoft needs our money. And even better yet, after you upgrade to win 8, you can buy extra cost software to make Win 8 behave just like Win 7 we paid an extra $200.00 to upgrade from.

What a deal what a deal, can Win 9 be far behind?

 

[cboath]

I'd be interested to know what level of user feels they simply 'have to have' a start menu.

What about it is a necessity?

The equivalent of nearly everything in the current (win 7) start menu is in the menu you get right clicking the lower left corner of the screen (where the start button used to be). The only things i think aren't on that list are the equivalent of my computer (which can be found by click the Windows Explorer icon on the task bar, and the all programs list which is the start screen or clicking the windows key for an auto search of everything that's registered.

What's left that's missing?

I have to admit, it's much easier to find things off the start menu and search than it was on the old start menu.

There's nothing wrong with missing it and wanting to do the previous way, but i'm getting tired of the complaint of it being gone without the qualification of what it's departure is costing you.

There's only one reason anyone can say the start button is better than what they've got now and that's because they've been using it for 17 years. That's it. There's no missing functionality, just a rearranging of what was there to be honest.

There's also been some degree of re-arranging between pretty much all versions, but admittedly, not to this degree.