backtop


Print 208 comment(s) - last by Xplorer4x4.. on May 24 at 8:43 PM

Microsoft officially announces Windows 8.1, promises big improvements are coming

Even as Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) ambitious operating system redesign, Windows 8, hit the 100 million license mark there was a grim air of self-assessment amongst the company brass.  Windows unit co-head and former business/marketing chief Tami Reller acknowledged in the earnings call, "Is it perfect? No. Are there things we need to change? Absolutely. We are being very real about what needs to change and changing it as thoughtfully and quickly as we can."

I. Microsoft Admits Windows 8 is a Work in Progress

Microsoft for the first time directly confirmed in the announcement that those changes are being wrapped into Windows 8.1, codenamed "Windows Blue".  The new OS is expected to launch this fall, with OEM test builds already leaking.  The new OS is expected to restore some semblance of a "Start" button, as well as allowing users to opt to boot to the desktop.

Microsoft would not say when the new OS will launch saying only that it will be "available later this year".  Microsoft says more details will be announced in the next couple weeks.

Launching Oct. 26, Microsoft's Windows 8 has kept pace with Windows 7 in license shipments for the period (Windows 7 hit 100m on April 27, 2010), which do not necessarily reflect end unit sales.  However, sales are noticeably decelerating.  Windows 8 reached 60 million unit sales by January, faster than Windows 7.  But since it has only moved 40 million units.  By contrast, Windows 7 sales started off slower then rapidly escalated.

Windows Blue
Microsoft is currently working on Windows 8.1 [Image Source: WindowsForum.eu]

The contrast stems largely from customer reaction.  With Windows 7, customers were wary from poor press and bad initial experiences to Vista, but quickly embraced the speedy overhaul of the familiar Windows interface once they experienced it.  Windows 8 appears to have had the opposite affect.  Customers started off optimistic off the high of Windows 7, but quickly chilled to the redesign due to its drastic and at times confusing nature.

Tami Reller
Tami Reller to Windows 8 users: "we're not sitting back." [Image Source: Microsoft News]

One big problem with Windows 8 is that despite the radical overhaul customers are presented with no basic tutorial on how to use the new OS when they turn it on for the first time.  Ms. Reller acknowledges that her company has perhaps over-innovated without giving customers a clear learning path commenting, "The learning curve is real, and we need to address it.  We're not sitting back and saying, they will get used to it.  We've considered a lot of different scenarios to help traditional PC users move forward as well as making usability that much better on all devices."

II. Lack of Affordable HD Laptops is Hurting Win8

A big problem is that while companies like Apple, Inc. (AAPL) or Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930) have no problem producing $500 USD high-resolution tablets, computer makers seem clueless as to how to produce an affordable touch laptop, much less a high-resolution one.  Most touch laptops remain above $800 USD, while most 1080p or better laptops remain above $1,000 USD.  But the alternative is accepting a relatively crippled Windows 8 experience in non-touch form factors.
Acer Aspire P3
The Aspire R715.6-inch is among the >$800 USD Windows 8 laptops/hybrids.
 
The lack of affordable, high-quality, useable options has plunged PC sales by 14 percent in Q1 2013, the biggest drop in history according to the International Data Corp. (IDC).

Ms. Reller sounded hopeful on this note, commenting, "We know customers like touch laptops, but they are also price sensitive.  Our partners (hardware makers) have to bet on volume, so that they get price breaks, and get that moving into the (retail) channel."

III. Tablet Sales Poor, RT Tablet Sales are Worse Than Poor

Things did not go very well on the tablet front, either.  While Microsoft's Surface sales hit 900,000 unit in Q1 that pales in comparison to the 19.5m iPads sold by Apple or the 8.8m Galaxy tablets moved by Samsung.  Microsoft is reportedly working on a smaller, more affordable Surface, in line with Apple and Samsung's strategy.  

Ms. Reller tried to look on the positive side, commenting, "The launch of Pro has also been helpful for Surface overall."

Windows RT
Surface Pro helped cover nonexistent Surface RT sales. [Image Source: Microsoft]

Of course, as that comment hints at sales of Surface RT have tanked.  Windows RT tablet sales in general have taken an abysmal turn, moving only 200,000 units in Q1 2013, according to the IDC.  Ms. Reller defended Windows RT, arguing, "Our commitment to the ARM platform is very strong.  We've done, I think, a good job at really listening to our partner feedback on where they want to take the ARM platform.  We're listening, we're continuing to evolve, and I think you'll see that over the next several quarters from us … our continued agility on Windows RT and ARM."

Samsung, Dell, Inc. (DELL), Acer, Inc. (TPE:2353) and the Lenovo Group Ltd. (HKG:0992) have all attacked the embattled Windows RT, complaining about its lack of legacy compatibility and Microsoft's poor marketing of the platform.

Ms. Reller called ARM chipmakers Qualcomm, Inc. (QCOM) and NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) "two great partners".  Qualcomm recently defended Microsoft's Windows RT, while NVIDIA refused to publicly give any comments of support (or criticism) regarding it.

Sources: Microsoft, IDC, The Verge



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

...
By Motoman on 5/7/2013 9:49:11 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The new OS is expected to restore some semblance of a "Start" button


Don't give us a "semblance" of a Start button. Give us a Start button.

quote:
Reller acknowledges that her company has perhaps over-innovated


...when did "over-innovated" become a thing? "Hey Charlie, WTF is the deal with the square wheels on your car?" "Oh, you don't see how they're superior to the ancient round design? Guess I over-innovated."

As for the "lack of affordable HD laptops" - the average consumer doesn't care about the resolution, anymore than to parrot it as a "requirement" because someone told them to do so, a la someone insisting they "need the iPhone with the bigger gee bees."

The point is that touch-enabled laptops, or touch-enabled hybrid devices, with Win8 are too expensive. Forget the resolution - the *vast* majority of users are fine with a laptop that does 1366x768...which costs $279. They're not going to pay $500 or more for something that adds touch...the rest of the spec changes aren't going to matter to them.

Granted that a touch screen costs a lot more than a non-touch screen, it's not reasonable to expect touch laptops/hybrids at that $300-or-less price point. So for the massive portion of the market that's well-served by the cheapest laptops in the store, there effectively is no touch Windows 8 experience.

Which is why it's all the more important to get the real Start button and desktop back. If you want to keep the Fisher-Price designed Kindergarten UI there too, fine. Just don't force your users to use it...ever.

At the end of the day, nothing else *really* matters - just get rid of that horrifically retarded Metrosexual UI and Windows 8 sales would pop right up to where they should be - regardless of touch/HD/anything else.




RE: ...
By Spuke on 5/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By karimtemple on 5/7/2013 10:32:47 AM , Rating: 4
The Start Menu is more structured and clearer than the Start Screen. That's the general reason for the complaints. The Start Screen is largely an organizational failure, and it was lazy on that front because it was supposed to have a far superior search mechanism, which also didn't quite happen (and is really a compliment to an organization schema, not a replacement).

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=30263...


RE: ...
By Mitch101 on 5/7/13, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/7/2013 11:58:14 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I dont know why anyone still complains about this there are plenty of free products to give start back


We're not Apple users. Not our job to QA and repair the vendor's broken products.

Also, the % of the PC using population that has any inclination or aptitude to do such at thing - as minor as it seems to DT readers - is tiny. 95% or better of the market is going to do no such thing.

They're going to take one look at the Metrosexual interface, and then not buy a new computer.


RE: ...
By MrBungle123 on 5/7/2013 12:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
or buy a mac which is what most of my family has done...


RE: ...
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/7/2013 12:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
Good for them...


RE: ...
By MrBungle123 on 5/7/2013 1:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'm no fan of Apple, don't own a single one of their products, just an observation.


RE: ...
By Solandri on 5/7/2013 2:54:23 PM , Rating: 3
Lack of a Start button in Win 8 seems like a silly reason to switch to a Mac. OS X doesn't have a Start button either. You start apps and switch between running apps via a graphical menu along the bottom, much like Metro except one-dimensional and doesn't take up the entire screen.

(Well, you can also start them via Finder, but that's kinda like saying you can start Windows apps by using Explorer to search in C:\Program Files.)


RE: ...
By EnzoFX on 5/7/2013 3:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
Except it's not like that seeing as there's no folders to navigate.

OS X would inherently be easier because it doesn't cover the whole screen as you say. That's what people are complaining about with Metro lol. Secondly a user would quickly pickup that the OS X Dock can easily be re-arranged, whereas in Metro, like the article states, people don't know wth to do with it, at least initially. Lastly, OS X search >>> Win search, needlessly complicated and less thorough.

The only reason anyone I know is still on Win is because of games, the only reason I boot into it as well. It's just crazy to me how off MS is off sometimes. My problem isn't Metro conceptually, it's the execution, there's all these little things that make zero sense, that I find incredibly UNintuitive.


RE: ...
By maugrimtr on 5/8/2013 8:32:03 AM , Rating: 2
The OS X dock is a brilliant piece of UI and it looks pretty. I know, pretty, but that's what the majority of consumers will notice and remember. I don't own an OS X machine but I always admired that part of the UI.

Compare that to a dual color tiling system that fills the entire screen with icons. Consumers will notice that too - many of them stuff shortcuts onto the desktop already.

One of these attractive, the other is defunct.


RE: ...
By amelia321 on 5/9/2013 10:02:15 AM , Rating: 1
Hadley. you think Russell`s article is exceptional... on monday I bought Dodge from making $6270 this past 5 weeks and-over, ten-grand this past-month. it's realy the most-comfortable job I have ever had. I actually started 8-months ago and almost immediately startad bringin in at least $72.. per/hr. I use the details on this website,, kep2.comCHECK IT OUT


RE: ...
By TakinYourPoints on 5/7/2013 5:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
The OS X dock functions more like the Windows 7 taskbar, which itself was like the KDE taskbar. Starting apps via Spotlight by typing in the name is similar to typing in the name via the Win8 Start Screen, except that it doesn't fill up the entire screen.

The Apple symbol in the upper left functions a little like the Start button. It doesn't launch applications but it does have access to the control panel, device manager, and its used to sleep/restart/shutdown the computer.

I still don't get why the Win8 control panel and sleep/shutdown buttons are in such bad places. The control panel placement bothers me more than anything in Win8, so badly executed that it demands you type in a search term rather than navigate it yourself.


RE: ...
By Pirks on 5/7/2013 5:31:57 PM , Rating: 1
you're just taking it outta your ass takin, in reality you just place control panel shortcut on your desktop or taskbar and voila, one click in win8 desktop and you're in control panel? was it SO hard to do for a smart guy like you? /facepalm

shame on you for not knowing such simple things, I'd understand if our corn farmers reclaimer or motogun didn't know this (not enough brain mass in both) but you! YOU! come ooon.


RE: ...
By TakinYourPoints on 5/7/2013 5:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
I know that you can do that, but putting a control panel shortcut on the desktop is not an optimal solution for me. I'd rather not clutter it up.

The implementation can be much more logical, straightforward, and cleaner than it is right now, that's all. Same with the shutdown menu.


RE: ...
By Digimonkey on 5/7/2013 10:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
Right click on the bottom left of your screen, on the desktop or in modern ui. It works both places.


RE: ...
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/7/2013 6:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
not enough brain mass in both
Pot...Kettle... ironic...


RE: ...
By Belard on 5/8/2013 8:37:37 AM , Rating: 1
So... The solution to win8 is to put everything onto the desktop or taskbar one icon at a time.... Out of metro? Wow...


RE: ...
By Pirks on 5/8/2013 2:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
If you put EVERYTHING like that, it means you're Belard, that is a brain dead technically illiterate troll who doesn't understand sh1t. However, not all users are as illiterate and dumb as you Belard, just keep that in your rotting mind.

P.S. more like some people need a few icons like that, I only use one, for control panel, that's enough for me, but maybe some will add a couple more, that's normal. No one adds EVERYTHING, because they have brain in their head, unlike you Belard :)


RE: ...
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 3:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
yea...or you can use win 7 and Start/control panel
no need for another icon to clutter your desktop.

I guess we should all be like Pirks and just insult everyone that disagrees.


RE: ...
By Pirks on 5/8/2013 3:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
no need for another icon to clutter your desktop
You can pin it to taskbar instead of desktop, so desktop won't be cluttered at all. Learn the basics before posting lies and anti8 propaganda here, otherwise no one smart will buy it :P


RE: ...
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 4:47:27 PM , Rating: 2
Who the hell would pin a control panel icon to the task bar? are you nuts? A task bar is only so big and I already have plenty of things on there. Let me guess, you want everyone to have icons on task bars and desktop as a workaround for a terrible Metro UI?


RE: ...
By Digimonkey on 5/9/2013 8:40:48 AM , Rating: 2
This is really a non-issue. You can right click on the bottom left of the screen and his pulls up a list of things like Run, Search, File Explorer, Control Panel, Device Manager, Programs and Features etc...all stuff you commonly go to is all right there.


RE: ...
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 8:30:01 AM , Rating: 2
Or you can have a start button and everything is there instead of just some of it.

Apparently it's a non issue for a few but an issue for millions.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/7/2013 1:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
If my only available options were to live with the Metrosexual UI, or switch to Mac - I'd switch to Mac. Given the choice though I'd switch to Linux before Mac.

The reality is though that people will just stay with their existing Win7/Vista/XP machines.

And of course there's apps to put the Start menu back into Win8 from 3rd party developers.

So not really any worry.

At the end of the day, Microsoft isn't really going to lose any marketshare per se - they're just not selling any Windows 8 licenses. They'll either get their act together and put the full, real Start menu and desktop back in, or people will continue to just not buy new computers and/or upgrade their OS.

Hope stocks of Win7 last a long time.


RE: ...
By Belard on 5/7/2013 2:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
Why not go Linux now? Try it out, especially on another computer... a spare computer. LinuxMint is excellent.


RE: ...
By xti on 5/7/2013 2:21:08 PM , Rating: 1
there is always one of these in these thread.


RE: ...
By Mitch101 on 5/7/2013 2:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
I like Linux but if a user struggles with the start button issue of Windows 8 even with free items to put one back their head will explode with the learning curve of Linux.


RE: ...
By Belard on 5/8/2013 8:53:13 AM , Rating: 1
The point is, TIFKAM is not compatible with windows programs, TIFKAM is a stupid desktop GUI and desktop application environment, come on... Microsoft is wetting their panties about how great win8.1 will allow you to (get this) see not just 2 but 3 (THREE) metro apps at the same time!!!

Whooped de fracking doo!

LinuxMint is easy to use, it's NOT windows, but where things are, makes sense. It's built in program management makes it easy to search and download programs then install. I installed LinuxMint because of windows8!

As long as you don't need windows specific programs, Linux will do. Games don't matter anymore, MS and consoles helped kill PC gaming. I'm buying one more $160 gaming card this fall to last me the next 5-8 years in case I need it... The PS4 is already on our wish list for Christmas. F MS, I won't buy their damn Xbox shit.

Linux functions like a desktop OS should, so it's not that much of a learning curve. It has it's control panel, doesn't take much to figure out. I installed OpenOffice as I want to stick with that rather than libreoffice (gee what a mess Oracle created). My wife knows little about computers, she uses her android phone for her personal needs... But she has no problems using Linux as a desktop OS once I set it up for her. No complaints. It's what she uses for work.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/7/2013 2:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
Because it's a buttload of work with a lot of BS to put up with when I don't actually have any problems using Win7.

Win7 is perfect for me. As was Vista, and XP.

I have no OS issues...so I'm not going to go and try to fix them.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/7/2013 2:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
...and also, I have to use MS Office and other MS tools for work, along with VPN utilities and whatnot that don't all have Linux versions.

And no...WINE isn't fine.

Not worth the effort. Best case is to use Win7.


RE: ...
By Pirks on 5/7/2013 5:00:22 PM , Rating: 1
your whining is funny, as if MS forces you to use metro apps. you can use desktop in win8 and forget about metro. so check your head maybe?


RE: ...
By Belard on 5/8/2013 9:09:30 AM , Rating: 2
Sick with win7.... Install Teracopy and Better Explorer... Enjoy it. I'll be using windows 7 as long as I need to. But I'm migrating to Linux.
Ive been using windows since the 3.1 days ( what a POS, always was) stardock made win3.1 usable with their stardock. Win95 was actually usable since it was an actual OS with some form of modern functionality.

So with almost 20 years of windows, I can't just jump over to Linux overnight. I have games and windows programs I still use today. But in a year or so, I don't see why Linux can't be my main OS.

The world today with computers is not like it was 3 or 5 years ago. I'm typing is on my iPad. I make posts on this site from my android phone sometimes. What do I need windows for? Turbotax, a few old PC games and photoshop. That's it. GIMP is no photoshop, but it looks like it'll do most of my needs. I still use MSOffice 2003... Open office is about 70% as good... I like MSOffice 2010... It's just that I don't need it personally. But in the end, I can get by with OO... But if I can get MSOffice 2003 to work under WINE and some other programs... That will help me move off of windows that much faster.

Printer drivers is biggest unknown to me... I'll need to research with brand works best with Linux.

The only direction MS will go is down. Meanwhile android, chromeOS and Linux are growing markets.

The world NO LONGER needs Microsoft, and that is WHY we have this turd called windows8.


RE: ...
By AstroGuardian on 5/8/13, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By tastyratz on 5/8/2013 9:03:33 AM , Rating: 2
precisely. Metro should be a "theme" not a new replacement. The start screen should be an option to an active background.


RE: ...
By Belard on 5/8/2013 2:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
Thinking about it... MS has been trying active desktop type things since windows 98. But it sucked so much in resources that we disabled that junk.

It was to make the desktop more alive... Metro start screen is it I guess.


RE: ...
By Xplorer4x4 on 5/24/2013 8:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Start Screen is largely an organizational failure

Your kidding right? I am a linux user primarily but occasionally I do use Win 8, and the Modern UI places the app shortcut right there on the screen. With the start menu, you go to all programs, and have to find the folder for the app, then go in to that folder and choose the app shortcut. Is the average user going to realize that to launch firefox through the start menu you need to go to start->all programs->Mozilla(that's the tricky part, the average user is going to look for firefox)->Firefox. by contrast, I can hit the start menu and see a firefox shortcut right there! What about something like The Sims that presumably installs in a start folder named EA Games. Hell you might need to navigate further by going to EA Games->The Sims 3->The Sims 3 Some Stupid Edition vs a shortcut right to the game on the start menu.


RE: ...
By DeanSch on 5/7/2013 11:42:05 AM , Rating: 3
The funny thing is, I've never heard anyone complain because the start button WAS there.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/7/2013 12:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

What we have is a tiny minority percentage of the PC market that's gone all fanboi on the Metrosexual UI - and they rant and rave like nobody's business when you dare to point out what a POS it is compared to the Start menu. They're wildly irrational, and holy crap do they get worked up into a lather when they get wind of someone not worshiping at their altar.

It's ridiculously clear though what a tiny % of the market those children are though...Win8's takeup rate is woefully behind even Vista, and that's not going to change until the Metrosexual UI can be avoided entirely. This is the greatest failure in the history of Microsoft.


RE: ...
By Da W on 5/7/2013 3:55:28 PM , Rating: 1
That tiny minority is now 100M


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/7/2013 4:31:05 PM , Rating: 3
No it isn't. First of all, that number is just the volume of licenses that MS has forcefed to OEMs. It doesn't define the sales rate or success in general of the OS.

Secondly:

http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/micro...

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11916148/1/microsof...

Win8 sales were highest right at release - before everyone truly realized what a POS it is. And it's been dropping precipitously ever since. It's now selling at a monthly rate about half of what Win7's monthly rate was during it's entire run.

Thirdly, the fact that someone *has* win8 doesn't mean that they *like* Win8. It doesn't mean that you're a fan of the Metrosexual UI. What it means, realistically speaking, is that you can't buy Win7 machines anymore. So if your PC just up and dies, and like 99% of the world you buy your computers premade from a vendor like Dell, HP, etc., you're f%cked. You're going to get Win8 because that's the only thing you *can* get.

You may hate it. You may fix it with Start8 or something else. Or maybe you upgrade it from Win8 to Win7 on your own. But the fact that you bought a PC with Win8 on it categorically DOES NOT mean that you like the Fisher-Price UI.


RE: ...
By Belard on 5/8/2013 9:17:39 AM , Rating: 3
Lenovos Thinkpad and thinkcentre line of computers comes with windows 7pro by default. The computes costs a little more, but hey... The drivers work, there's no bloatware preinstalled, and they are very good computers.
Better and cheaper than buying a win8 computer and spending $100-150 for a win7 OEM disc and hoping to find drivers that work, especially for notebooks.

The cheapest Thinkpad is the Edge series at about $450 while the Tseries is their high end at $800. Cool thing is, you don't get the stupid glossy screens you see on all the other notebooks...


RE: ...
By p05esto on 5/7/2013 11:27:02 PM , Rating: 3
That's 100Mil licenses (new PCs, distributors). That does not equal actual operating instances of Win8. Get a clue, Win8 is a TOTAL failure and it is impossible to use. I pulled my hair out looking at the stupidity in front of me and then went back to Win7. MS can make up whatever stats they want to try and make people think Win8 is great....they can even lie, it's not against the law to claim they are slling tons of licenses.


RE: ...
By karimtemple on 5/7/2013 12:53:25 PM , Rating: 3
lol!! This reminds me of one of my favorite phrases:

"What problem is this solving?"


RE: ...
By Solandri on 5/7/2013 3:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
On phones and tablets it solves the fat finger problem. The line items in the start menu are too small to accurately tap with a finger. So you enlarge them into tiles which are big enough to finger tap.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why they require you to use it with a mouse.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/7/2013 3:36:53 PM , Rating: 1
That's just it. MS seems to have forgotten that laptops and desktops aren't phones and tablets.

Different devices require different interfaces.

Imagine you go to look at a newly-built home...and every door in the house is an overhead garage door. Even on the bedrooms and closets.

"Why would you do that?" you ask the builder.

"Well, because then all the room-user interfaces are the same!" says the builder.

"SMACK!" says your palm when it meets your face with great velocity.


RE: ...
By Belard on 5/8/2013 9:23:00 AM , Rating: 2
Wish I can up vote you... That is excellent.


RE: ...
By Belard on 5/8/2013 9:24:57 AM , Rating: 2
Wish I can up vote you... That is excellent.

It's one of the reasons why old windowsCE devices kind of sucked... It was a desktop GUI on a tiny 4" or so screen that was unresponsive and low res.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/7/2013 11:56:03 AM , Rating: 4
...look at what your Fisher-Price UI is doing to the PC market.

Now who's hilarious?


RE: ...
By DiscoWade on 5/7/2013 9:57:22 AM , Rating: 3
I don't care about a start button, I care about what happens when I push the start button. I don't want to go to some full screen menu, I want a concise menu. I want a menu like the one in Windows 7. If Microsoft puts a start button in but not an original start menu, then it shows they have learned nothing. A hammer is not a screwdriver; stop trying to make laptops and desktops work like tablets. Different tools have different purposes.


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/7/2013 10:16:21 AM , Rating: 2
"I don't want to go to some full screen menu, I want a concise menu."

Exactly. I hate having to leave the screen I am on to launch another app or do a quick lookup. A full screen menu is counterproductive.


RE: ...
By karimtemple on 5/7/2013 10:46:27 AM , Rating: 2
Not if you only want to do one thing at a time! lol


RE: ...
By WinstonSmith on 5/7/2013 10:58:06 AM , Rating: 4
"Not if you only want to do one thing at a time! lol "

Correct. And the ability to do that with multiple apps sharing the screen and open for use at the same time being something that WINDOWING UIs are supposed to do by definition. That's why Win8 should be called Tiles1. It's designed for mobile devices where having multiple windows open and sharing the limited LCD real estate isn't practical.


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 5/7/13, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/7/2013 12:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
"And yet eyetracking tests have shown that virtually nobody who opens the start menu looks anywhere other thn at just the start menu. If nobody looks elsewhere, why not maximize the amount of space you can utilize?"

Following some eye tracking tests and not what users want = the largest decline in the PC market ever. Nice logic.

It's not like it's a hard thing to do, just give users a choice and it would be fine. IF you want Metro, you got it, if you want the old start menu, you got it. It was zero effort. In fact, the start menu was already there in hte early dev builds... MS took it out on purpose through some bassackwards decision and now they pissed off half thier users. Whatever, its thier product and thier choice. Most people are happy simply "choosing" not to buy it.


RE: ...
By Pirks on 5/7/2013 5:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the largest decline in the PC market ever
which has nothing to do with Win8, people just started to buy fewer PCs in general because now they use tablets and smartphones instead


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/7/2013 6:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
I would say its partially both. Having a new OS come out that is this disliked (right or wrong, like it or not, there is negative press about Win8 and the lack of start menu all over the place). If a new OS was really well received it would spur people to buy. This is alot like Vista, people just seem to hate it. It really wasnt a bad OS, and there were other factors, but MS definitely had a perception problem on their hands if nothing else. Same with 8, It is perceived as a flop. Even MS is admitting it now. Most people look at it, use it, or ask one of their friends who knows PC's and decides against it because it doesn't do anything for you, and in many cases, for many people is less productive.


RE: ...
By Mint on 5/7/2013 8:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
Partially could mean 10% or 90%, and you implied the latter with your post while the former is far more likely.

It's not more productive to do extra clicks and scrolling in the Win7 start menu vs Win8. It's more familiar, and that's it.


RE: ...
By TakinYourPoints on 5/7/2013 5:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm no Windows 8 fan, but the decline in PC sales has more to do with longevity than anything else. Computers last longer than they ever have.

My Haswell upgrade next month comes more out of some bizarre sense of obligation than actual need, despite the fact that I game at 2560x1440. Going over 3 1/2 years on this i7 860 feels weird since my average major upgrade cycles (CPU + mobo) used to be 18-24 months. It still runs everything great though. Maybe in hindsight it will be worth the upgrade, we'll see.

Either way, I'm in the hardware enthusiast niche, and if upgrades aren't such a big deal for me then they certainly mean even less for normals.

It isn't like ten years ago where an upgrade would yield massive improvements even in basic desktop performance. People could justify completely new computers more often. Nowadays the most significant upgrade anyone can do is to install an SSD, and that's a very easy and affordable upgrade even in an older laptop.


RE: ...
By Belard on 5/8/2013 9:39:52 AM , Rating: 1
People are always buying new computers... But many are buying tablets instead of notebooks for personal use. I'm typing this on my ipad1 (really) yet upstairs I have a 24" monitor running windows 7 with an i5 3570k CPU / 16GB of ram...

But the 14% drop in PC sales is very bad. People are AVOIDING windows8. People like me are sticking with 7. When I build a new computer for a client, it's windows7... Thank god MS is still selling that, they are not completely brain dead. Imagine the shit storm if there was no win7 left? But look at office2010, it's gone... Office2013 is a ripoff, originally it would live and die on the one pc you installed it on. Period... Wow, $400 for software you can't transfer if your notebook is damaged or stolen. Still, you are Allowed a single install... Unlike past versions which allowed 2... One for desktop and a notebook.

Win8 sales is tanking. Period.

Haswell will be a nice upgrade... You get usb3.0, a cooler running chip, PCIe 3.0 and less power usage. Get it from a local Microcenter if possible. My old Q6600 was replaced by the i5 3570k last fall... It's quite nice.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/7/2013 12:21:29 PM , Rating: 2
I've pointed out why that's the most retarded thing ever said before. I'll do it again:

quote:
And yet eyetracking tests have shown that virtually nobody who opens the start menu looks anywhere other thn at just the start menu


...if you've opened the Start menu, you're looking for something in the Start menu. Hence...you'll be looking at the Start menu.

If you weren't looking for something in the Start menu, you wouldn't open the Start menu, and then you wouldn't be looking at the Start menu.

You might as well say "virtually nobody who opens the refrigerator door looks anywhere other than in the refrigerator...if nobody looks elsewhere, why not just make the whole kitchen one big refrigerator?"

Your statement is so horrifically, catastrophically retarded that it boggles the mind that there's actually people idiotic enough to say it.


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/7/2013 12:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
"You might as well say "virtually nobody who opens the refrigerator door looks anywhere other than in the refrigerator...if nobody looks elsewhere, why not just make the whole kitchen one big refrigerator?"

LOL... Great analogy. That is exactly what its like.


RE: ...
By Mint on 5/7/2013 8:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's an awful analogy. Whole kitchen a refridgerator? Since when can you change the temperature and contents of a refridgerator in a few milliseconds?

If cost/space wasn't a concern, everyone would buy a huge refrigerator, because everything they usually use is right in the front and they don't need to dig through items to get what they want.

Sound familiar?


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 5/7/2013 5:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You might as well say "virtually nobody who opens the refrigerator door looks anywhere other than in the refrigerator...if nobody looks elsewhere, why not just make the whole kitchen one big refrigerator?"

And even more accurate would be comparing it to saying that you have a full size fridge with a mini-fridge worth of capacity. The portion where the freezer might be would just be more room for hanging pictures your children drew at school.

You're an idiot if you can't tell the difference.

The argument I'm trying to make has to do with that fact that *because* people are always looking at the start menu, it makes more logical sense to increase the amount of usable space to give access to more applications, and at the same time enhance muscle memory by making use of that extra area to provide a 2D layout which doesn't work as well in the classic start menu.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/7/2013 6:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
HOLY F%CK YOU'RE RETARDED!

No, your analogy doesn't make any sense.

I've irrefutably described WHY people ONLY look at the Start menu when they open it. It's for the same reason why you only find yourself wearing pants after you've put pants on. It's for the same reason why you find yourself owning a dog after you've bought a dog. It's for the same reason why you have more energy after taking a nap. THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF DOING THAT THING!

The VERY PURPOSE of opening the Start menu is TO LOOK IN IT.

And then you close it. Because you found what you were looking for. Just like you close the door to the fridge after you get a beer. Just like your pants are on the floor after you took them off. Just like you sold your dog after he peed on your stereo. So on and so forth.

When you're driving, your eyes almost never leave the road. OMFG PAVE ALL THE THINGS!!!

Holy balls you jackhole, pull your head out of your a$$ and stop being such a f%cking retard. Doesn't it hurt to be that motherf%cking retarded?


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 5/8/2013 12:40:04 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, you spew so much sh*t out of your mouth its not even funny, do you listen to yourself? Or for that matter, what I even said?

I've never seen someone so stupid as to think they understand a piece of logic so well as to propose a variety of extreme over the top examples that aren't even the same.

For example, your driving example. People looking at the road while they're driving has nothing to do with whether it is paved or not. An example involving driving that had anything to do with what I said would be about the visibility out the front windshield. Imagine a car that only had glass out of the driver side of the windshield. Because the driver is always looking out the windshield, it means the manufacturer of the car can provide a more optimal experience by providing the entire windshield, expanding the driver's field of view, and area which he can see outside of the car.

If you take something that is normally a small window in the corner of the screen which is always in the person's vision when being used, it makes optimal sense to extend the functionality of that window during use to maximize the experience. You increase the usable space of the window dramatically while also enabling the option to use a new layout scheme which enhances muscle memory. This can only be done because the person using it always looks at it when using it, and never anywhere else. If people often looked at areas of the screen other than the start menu, then this becomes an illogical argument since it cannot be justified. This is simply a logical optimization made by realizing there is a constant involved.


RE: ...
By Belard on 5/8/2013 2:13:54 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, your ideas are still stupid. Including your windshield one.
Okay, a big windshield is more viewing room... Well, with your logic, all the gauges should go across the entire dashboard... Especially if it's a HUD version... And make it TOUCH gauges that are only viewable when you touch it.

Cars have windshields so you can see where you are driving and it holds two people in the front.


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/8/2013 2:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of the example, the reality is on your screen... And eye tracking studies and the opinion of some team of yahoo's in product development at MS dont make forcing a full screen menu a good thing. It's a great touchscreen tablet UI, it just doesnt work well for multitasking on non-touchscreen PC's. There is nothing you can say that makes a full screen start menu useful for people that multitask alot. It just loses efficiency, period. Again, great for playing on a tablet, not for Work.


RE: ...
By Pirks on 5/8/2013 3:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It just loses efficiency
No it doesn't, because whether you look at a small start menu or a large start screen - it doesn't matter, there is no difference between them because time to find a shortcut and click on it is the same for both, so you lies won't fly here.


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/8/2013 4:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
"No it doesn't, because whether you look at a small start menu or a large start screen - it doesn't matter, there is no difference between them because time to find a shortcut and click on it is the same for both, so you lies won't fly here."

LOL... Okeedokee Pirks... Yes, I must be lying. The millions of people that hate the new UI on their non-touchscreen devices and the developers at MS that have said they will put it back in the next version are all wrong and you are right.

Even when made smaller, the tiles arent too large, and the fact that you cant embed anything in folders must also be a lie and fullscreen doesnt take your focus away, its all in my imagination.

Seriously, I keep asking and you avoid it. Why do you care how I prefer my work computer to operate? I like 7 better at work because 8's SM really isnt as efficient, regardless of what your single track mind can think, it isn't for me, or many other users that heavily multitask. You getting all butt-hurt and saying " it doesn't matter, there is no difference" doesn't change the fact that its less efficient. It just make you look somewhere between stubborn, childish and nutjobish.


RE: ...
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/8/2013 4:26:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously, I keep asking and you avoid it. Why do you care how I prefer my work computer to operate?
One word : Troll

Everyone apparently is a liar but him, isn't is obvious?

Everyone is <insert whatever name/term/whatever he uses here> but him.


RE: ...
By Mint on 5/7/2013 8:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...if you've opened the Start menu, you're looking for something in the Start menu. Hence...you'll be looking at the Start menu.
I'm glad you agree.

So tell me: If this is so blatantly obvious, then why on earth is it productive to make users click and scroll through a tiny part of the screen for launch options?

Why not give a full screen of 50+ apps to launch with one click?


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/7/2013 8:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
Why not leave it in and let users decide? They removed it after the beta and before official release on purpose. It wasn't even a technical issue, they just decided to take it out.


RE: ...
By Mint on 5/7/2013 9:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
I can't defend that move by MS.

If it were up to me, I'd leave the option of turning it on, but as I suggested in another comment, I'd have a tool to auto-populate/arrange the start page upon installation so that most people wouldn't bother.

There's a reason that pinning was so popular with Win7.


RE: ...
By Pirks on 5/8/2013 3:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's a reason that pinning was so popular with Win7
I use pinning often on Win8 desktop to pin my shortcuts to the taskbar and laugh at Win8 haters at the same time :)


RE: ...
By Solandri on 5/7/2013 3:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And yet eyetracking tests have shown that virtually nobody who opens the start menu looks anywhere other thn at just the start menu.

That's Microsoft's own fault. If you open the Start menu, then try to click anywhere else, the Start menu automatically closes. If you eliminate the ability of people to do anything outside the Start menu once it's opened, of course they're not going to look anywhere else.

I've frequently wanted the Start menu to remain open. Maybe it covers up part of the instructions I'm trying to follow in my browser. Or maybe I need to adjust a program's settings before I decide what changes to make in Control Panel. Or (most common) I want to click on something in it, but some background task or a dialog pops up which steals focus, causing the Start menu to close.

Microsoft programmed it so that once you open the Start menu, you must devote 100% of your attention to it. If you try to do anything outside of it, it closes. So of course people aren't going to look outside the Start menu - because they've made it pointless and frustrating if you do.


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 5/7/2013 5:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've frequently wanted the Start menu to remain open. Maybe it covers up part of the instructions I'm trying to follow in my browser.

A fair point, albeit relatively uncommon. I think this is a valid counter argument, though.
quote:
Or maybe I need to adjust a program's settings before I decide what changes to make in Control Panel.

Why would you open the start menu if you had to go do something else first?
quote:
Or (most common) I want to click on something in it, but some background task or a dialog pops up which steals focus, causing the Start menu to close.

How is this an advantage of the start menu? Having another application pop up a message and making you lose focus is a benefit?


RE: ...
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 8:02:04 AM , Rating: 2
Of course opening the start menu will make your eye focus on it. How would you even get your cursor on it if your eyes wasn't focused on it.

The point of a part screen start menu is that I don't have to lose track of my work. I may not focus on my windows but I know exactly where it is in my peripherals. My brain still keeps track of everything.

OTOH, a full screen start screen makes me lose track of everything I'm doing. It's a psychological and human function thing. If you're reading or working on something and a massive blue screen appears in front of your face with "active tiles" dancing all up in your face, you will lose focus of what you're doing and be pissed off.

The fact that metro UI has poor organization and force people to use search is terrible. I can do more and quicker with a start menu that takes up 1/8 of my screen than a full screen menu that force me to search and lose focus. Yea, that's backwards.


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 5/8/2013 11:09:55 AM , Rating: 2
Nothing is forcing you to search for anything. Half the point of the new layout is that it is more customizable and better suited for visual muscle memory by providing a 2D layout. How is that poor organization?

Also your reply doesn't have anything to do with the post it is in response to...


RE: ...
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 11:57:49 AM , Rating: 2
Start menu = 1/8 screen, automatic organization, perfect hierarchy system

Start Screen = bad organization, uses whole screen and take away from my work, no hierarchy, icons are space inefficient, works great for touchscreens

Why change something that works amazing well?
The alternative is not an improvement. It is space inefficient. It forces you to use the whole screen when you don't need to. You have to spend time customizing everything. The active tiles are annoying more than helpful.

Now instead of a few twitches and 3 clicks to launch any file or program i want, I have to spend extra time visually searching an entire screen. Then if it's not there I have to search for it.
I still have one laptop that still has win8. I do use it regularly along with 2 other PCs. I still cannot be as efficient.

However, I've played with a Surface and Metro does work great there. I've used a touchscreen ultrabook and Metro works good there also. I don't understand why we can't have both Metro and Start Button.


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 5/8/2013 3:59:56 PM , Rating: 2
If your goal is efficiency I have to wonder why you are spending time with the mouse to traverse through a hierarchy of folders when you could just type a few letters on the keyboard and find it instantly.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/8/2013 4:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
You mean like you could in Windows 7? And Vista? And XP?

...and maybe 2000, although I don't have any such machines laying around anymore. I wouldn't be surprised if you could do that in Windows 95.

Of course, the bleeding-edge "type in" technology you speak of was invented, oh, about 50 years ago at this point. Since that's what we all used to do before we realized that typing everything in was horribly inefficient, and we switched to GUIs instead.


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 5/8/2013 8:22:55 PM , Rating: 2
Once again you completely miss the point. Try re-reading, this time slowly because apparently you can't. I did not say anywhere that this was a start screen exclusive. Also XP was not able to do that.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/10/2013 10:33:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also XP was not able to do that.


Yes it is. Although the little search field on the taskbar came in a service pack or something after the original shipping. But it's a native MS function.


RE: ...
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 4:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
are you telling me 3 clicks and a scroll is slower than a search?


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 5/8/2013 8:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, significantly.

Have you ever actually used the search on the start menu to launch things? It's for all intents and purposes instantaneous.

Go ahead, hit the windows key, type "ca" and press enter as quickly as you can. Calculator will pop open almost immediately after you hit enter.


RE: ...
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 8:45:18 AM , Rating: 2
Are you telling me using a keyboard + mouse combo is faster and easier than 3 clicks and a scroll? You're nuts

You are still ignoring the fact that the big blue splash full screen is a distraction and takes focus away from what I was doing. It's a psychological thing and happens to everyone.

Then you're also telling me that reading an organized hierarchy that gives you everything taking only 1/8 of the screen is slower than trying to read the whole screen.

Then you are also negating the fact if you spelled something wrong or have a brain fart and forgot the name of the program, it takes forever to find it. With a start button hierarchy, it wouldn't matter because muscle memory and location recognition still saved me.

Even after 6+ months of trying to get used to all these "non-issues", it still pisses me off every day. Apparently, it also pisses off millions of others.


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 5/10/2013 10:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you telling me using a keyboard + mouse combo is faster and easier than 3 clicks and a scroll? You're nuts

Again, yes, absolutely and without a doubt. I bet I can open any program on the start menu programs list hierarchy three times by the time you can click and scroll your way there.


RE: ...
By WinstonSmith on 5/7/2013 10:54:05 AM , Rating: 2
"A full screen menu is counterproductive."

Not if the LCD is small like on the tablets and smart phones that Win8 is optimized for because that's what its intended as, a tablet/smart phone OS. It's forced onto desktop users so Microsoft can break out of its single percentage point inroad into the mobile segment, THE computing growth segment, with desktop users who are familiar with the Win8 UI preferring and buying mobile devices using it because they're already familiar with it. This "upgrade" is not about your convenience, it's about their survival.


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/7/2013 12:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
"Not if the LCD is small like on the tablets and smart phones"

Agreed, and its a great interface for touchscreens... but Windows supports more than just small tablets and phones with touchscreens. The start menu was already there, MS decided to lock it out for whatever reason, making desktops and laptops use a touchscreen interface that is wasnt designed for and inst efficient for. In other words they had a one OS fits all solution and narrowed it down so that it doesnt.


RE: ...
By karimtemple on 5/7/2013 12:35:27 PM , Rating: 2
Even for touchscreens, Microsoft could've done a lot better. There are a lot of areas of the UI where controls are clunkier than they had to be. There are people coming out now saying "multitasking isn't that big of a deal!" but that's just dissonance from novelty. A device that aims to be for more than just media consumption needs multitasking controls. That's what windows were in the first place. What Modern UI is doing is not a real alternative to windows.


RE: ...
By TakinYourPoints on 5/7/2013 5:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
Ergonomics dictate usage. A small touchscreen with giant finger sized targets are better optimized for fullscreen applications using multipaned UIs. A large display using a much more accurate and granular mouse interface works better for multiple windowed applications within a desktop.

Trying to mash the two together is why Windows 8 feels so schizophrenic, even after you've gotten used to it.


RE: ...
By 91TTZ on 5/7/2013 4:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not if the LCD is small like on the tablets and smart phones that Win8 is optimized for because that's what its intended as, a tablet/smart phone OS


No it isn't. Windows Phone is for smartphones. Windows RT is for tablets. Windows 8 is for desktop/laptops.


RE: ...
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 8:23:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'll correct it for you

quote:
No it isn't. Windows Phone is for smartphones. Windows RT is for tablets. Windows 8 is for desktops/laptops/tablets.


It seems like the Surface Pro running win8 will probably outsell the RT


RE: ...
By 91TTZ on 5/8/2013 11:49:50 AM , Rating: 2
But only because the RT is a complete flop. Even the Surface Pro isn't selling much.


RE: ...
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 3:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
which tells you how much of a failure win8 is. Neither tablets or PCs are selling well. The damn OS can't decide what it wants to be. It's a bisexual OS.


RE: ...
By Newspapercrane on 5/7/2013 11:46:35 AM , Rating: 2
Because of all of the multitasking you do between the start menu and other programs, right?

I've never really understood this complaint. I've never used my start menu while using anything else on the screen. In fact, you really can't, because if you need to go back to the other program, the start menu lost your place. It's not a program that stays open that you can ALT+Tab back and forth to.

The windows 8 start screen fits what I need: the screen is for getting information quickly (temperature, number of emails, facebook notifications, that sort of thing). If I need to open a program I hit the windows key and type what I want. The same way I did on windows 7.


RE: ...
By karimtemple on 5/7/2013 12:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
What Modern UI is doing is slower and clunkier than the taskbar (and windows themselves). That's what's being discussed when people start talking about 8 and multitasking.


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/7/2013 12:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
"I've never really understood this complaint. I've never used my start menu while using anything else on the screen."

Let me help you... I actually do use and like Win8 at home, but at work I do a ton of different things at once... The taskbar isn't big enough to set up that many shortcuts, so I use the start menu for the "2nd tier" things I do fairly often, and the taskbar for "1st tier" things I do constantly. In W8 its a pain in the ass because the start menu forces you to leave the screen you were on to go to a fullscreen menu and choose your next shortcut. It kind of kills the ease of multitasking that we have had for a decade..." If that doesnt make sense, then you probably never used the start menu much for shortcuts and didnt really multitask that heavily.


RE: ...
By Pirks on 5/7/2013 5:55:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the start menu forces you to leave the screen you were on to go to a fullscreen menu and choose your next shortcut
you don't use anything else when you go to start menu and you don't look anywhere else either, so what's the point in showing the desktop and windows on it when start menu is open IF YOU DON'T LOOK AT THEM ANYWAY?


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/7/2013 6:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
I repeat... " It kind of kills the ease of multitasking that we have had for a decade..." If that doesnt make sense, then you probably never used the start menu much for shortcuts and didnt really multitask that heavily."


RE: ...
By Pirks on 5/7/2013 7:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
well, it can't kill the ease of multitasking because nothing is changed, you were concentrating your attention on the old small start menu, now you concentrate your attention on the new large one, in both cases you do not look at other things, you always look just at the start menu, hence there is no difference between two scenarios, see?


RE: ...
By MrBungle123 on 5/7/2013 7:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
by that logic you should run everything full screen because you can only focus on one thing at a time... I think it's pretty safe to say that you're wrong.


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/7/2013 7:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... yup, that would pretty much kill the whole "windows" concept.


RE: ...
By Pirks on 5/7/2013 8:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
actually ipad is extremely popular because it does NOT have overlapping windows, so you need to reconsider the importance of overlapping windows for the mass consumer, at whom windows 8 is targeted by the way


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/8/2013 8:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
1. That is not WHY the iPad is popular.
2. The iPad is a 10 inch touchscreen tablet. It's pretty unanimous that most people like Win8's touchscreen/tablet UI for touchscreens and tablets. I agree. It's the forcing that UI on a large non-touch screen that is irritating an inefficient. Whether you agree or not MS has decided to act, so I will take that at its worth.


RE: ...
By Mint on 5/7/2013 9:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
There's a difference between wanting windowing to do work and wanting windowing for the 2 seconds while you launch a program.

The latter makes no sense to me, especially when it drags the 2 seconds into 3 or 4 as you click on "Programs", scroll to where you need to go, click on a subfolder or two, and finally click to launch.

Why do you need to focus on multiple things during those couple of seconds?


RE: ...
By MrBungle123 on 5/8/2013 11:11:20 AM , Rating: 2
1. It annoys me when anything but a game takes over my entire monitor.

2. Hijacking the monitor breaks my mental context, its more like a distraction than an application launcher.

3. The Start Screen looks like a web page that is completely overrun by banner ads... another thing that drives me nuts.

4. I find the premise of Windows 8 offensive... MS designed this OS under the belief that the future is full screen touch first apps purchased from MS's app store. They aren't guessing that this is where things will move as products and customer preferences evolve, they are trying to force it.

#4 alone is reason enough for me to not buy Windows 8 and steer everyone I know away from it.


RE: ...
By Mint on 5/8/2013 12:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's impossible for me to say you're wrong about subjective preference, but here's my take on those points:

#1,2: Most programs fill the screen when launched anyway, and you're intentionally breaking your concentration to navigate the win7 start menu anyway.

#3,4: Then just stick it to MS by deleting all the win8 tiles and putting only desktop shortcuts there. You'll still save time launching programs.

Anyway, your points are unrelated to productivity/multitasking. Those are the arguments that nobody has been able to justify to me.


RE: ...
By Belard on 5/8/2013 2:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
#3/4 that doesn't stick to Microsoft, that's living with crap and sweeping it under the rug.

The way you STICK IT to Microsoft is to NOT buy windows or their products. And double whammy is to go to Linux or Mac. And triple whammy is to let customers know what crap it is.

That is what we are doing.


RE: ...
By Pirks on 5/8/2013 3:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hijacking the monitor breaks my mental context, its more like a distraction than an application launcher
Mac users all absolutely love their full screen OS X widgets, they hit a hotkey and bam, a swarm of small widgets takes full screen, hit it again and bam, it disappears. NOT A SINGLE MAC USING PERSON EVER COMPLAINED ABOUT THEIR WIDGET SCREEN OCCUPYING THEIR ALL SCREEN SPACE. Which shows that all these fussy "sensitive to good UI blah blah" hipsters do not mind full screen of info occasionally taking away their attention. Which proves that you are just bullsh1tting us. If they don't complain, being sensitive and picky and all - then your complain is a fake too, you're just trolling.


RE: ...
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/8/2013 8:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, because you personally know ALL the Mac users in the world. You are a moron.


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/7/2013 7:45:51 PM , Rating: 2
No. I don't see. The old sm had folders. The new has giant tiles that are too large to put all of my 2nd level shortcuts. I just don't like it at work. Its not an anti W8 thing, as I have told you I use it at home and am not going back... but at work, where I multitask alot it just doesn't work for me, in spite of your insistence that it does. MS putting it back in WinBlue says that MS agrees, or at least caved to the millions of people that don't like it. Deal with it.


RE: ...
By Pirks on 5/7/2013 7:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
MS putting it back in WinBlue
MS is putting back the start button that opens THE NEW FULLSCREEN metro style start screen, which proves your delusions are not rooted in reality.
quote:
The new has giant tiles that are too large to put all of my 2nd level shortcuts
It's pretty easy to learn how to decrease the tile size from double width to single width, making quite a lot of them possible given that you use any decent 1920x1200 screen, here's how you do this: right click on the double width tile, or on a few of them if you want to shrink them together, then look at the menu at the bottom, see the icon "Smaller" in there? Click on it, voila, no need in smallish old start menu anymore. Simple eh ;)


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/7/2013 8:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know, I had heard that, we will have to see what they finally release. And yes, I know how to decrease the size but it still sucks, still no folders and therefore no way to organize hierarchically, and its still fullscreen. I don't like anything full screen, and anything that is takes away from my productivity. At home its fine, but when I am at work I need a real multitasking menu, not a dumbed down tablet interface.

Why do you even care? Its not like I hate Microsoft.I use Windows 7 and perfectly happy with it. I use Windows 8 at home and am happy with it. It just doesn't work well for me at the office where I multitask all day long. If you like it at work you use it at work I don't like it.


RE: ...
By Pirks on 5/7/2013 8:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't like anything full screen
that's called irrational fear, my friend :)I mean there's no technical reason not to like it, more like being afraid of the new UI paradigm. just let it go man


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/7/2013 10:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
Ya, you got me. I am afraid of any full screen app. Wow. You must be some high level psychiatrist.

Its not about not liking new ui's I love new ui's, it's just they are usually better, that is usually the catalyst for putting one in, and it is true for touchscreens its a good new ui. Forcing a touchscreen ui on a non touchscreen just doesnt work well for me. Why do you care?


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/7/2013 10:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
Ya, you got me. I am afraid of any full screen app. Wow. You must be some high level psychiatrist.

Its not about not liking new ui's I love new ui's, it's just they are usually better, that is usually the catalyst for putting one in, and it is true for touchscreens its a good new ui. Forcing a touchscreen ui on a non touchscreen just doesnt work well for me. Why do you care?


RE: ...
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 7:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
NO it's not irrational. It's called multitasking. When you have a large enough screen with high res, it is the better way to use your PC.

I'm guessing you've never have to use multiple spreadsheets, programs, data, etc....to compile and write a report/paper?

I'm guessing you don't want to be able to watch a movie/show while chatting or surfing the web.

I'm guessing you don't want to be able to see where all your windows are and organize it so you quickly switch.

Full screen is great but its use are very limited when multitasking.


RE: ...
By Pirks on 5/8/2013 3:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm guessing you don't want to be able to watch a movie/show while chatting or surfing the web.
I do it regularly in metro, I snap skype to the left and video player to the right and watch another season of walking dead or whatever while chatting on the left 'cause the person I'm chatting with sometimes takes minutes to answer, it's like an offshore support company, I work with them and they sometimes can't answer my questions quick. So what's your point then? Yes, I can multitask in metro, no problem, with split screen it works 100% and in win 8.1 where one can have up to four metro apps sharing the screen it will work even better. You were saying...?


RE: ...
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 3:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
and what happens when you hit the start menu to open something else?

Oh right...a full blue screen with annoying active icons.


RE: ...
By Pirks on 5/8/2013 4:37:06 PM , Rating: 1
yeah, I know, it will allow me to run some other app and I won't get any seizures or any other funny mental issues of Win8 haters :P

since I also know how to turn off live tiles and make them static/non-animated, I can then double pwn idiots who babble about live tiles being animated and shit. dumb trolls can't look at one simple menu at the start screen when you do right click, in order to turn off tile animations :))) hahaha, that's why win8 hating idiots are so funny! they don't know basic facts about metro. got it?


RE: ...
By MrBungle123 on 5/7/2013 12:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
What if you're following a web tutorial that is click by click explaining how to open up an obscure option buried 18 levels down in some menu? Not possible with metro without constantly switching back and forth because it takes over your entire monitor... piece of cake with the start menu.


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 5/7/2013 12:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly... The fact that it takes over your entire monitor is the main issue. That gets in my way constantly. At home, I live with it because I really don't multitask that much, but at work it makes it miserable to use and it slows me down.


RE: ...
By Mint on 5/7/2013 9:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
How often do you need to multitask in the middle of launching a program? When you decide to launch something, don't you just want to just launch it and be done with it?

I've never had it get in the way, and simply don't understand this sentiment at all. I just go in and out. What exactly are you doing for it to "get in your way constantly"?

The example MrBungle123 gives is very obscure, and doesn't apply to the start page anyway because there's no levels.


RE: ...
By nikon133 on 5/7/2013 6:34:38 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

I see a great benefit from live tiles. I use Outlook for my main email client, but why opening Outlook if I have no new emails? Likewise, why going to FB if I can reply to my mates from People tile? Calendar, Weather, ToDo - same story.

While most of my apps are sitting on taskbar anyway, I still run less common apps from menu. Win 7 had quite limited favourites (pinned programs) so more often than not, I'd click on Start button, click on All Programs, scroll through menu, click on folder where required app is, click on app.

Now I click corner and click required app most of the time, situations where I have to scroll Start Screen or go to All Apps are extremely rare (I did spend a few minutes sorting my Start Screen). I also like (and utilised) grouping, so my Start Screen apps are grouped in Favourites, Media, Productivity, Games, Utils - just the way I wanted them.

Add to that admin menu with Start corner right-click, boot time, dual screen improvements... I'm happy.

Yes Windows 8 has bipolar nature with Modern and Classic UIs, but if one manages to get over that, functionality is there, and I personally think is better than W7. I also work for small IT company and, out of 20 workforce, 17 have upgraded to Win 8 and, after using it for a while, no one reverted back to W7 (even if everyone was obliged to make a full backup of their machines before upgrading, so reverting wouldn't be complicated at all). Of people who didn't, two are admin (non-IT people) who don't really care what OS are they using, and one helpdesk guy we made stay on W7 for customer support reasons.

Yes it is a small number, but it still makes me wonder - how many people who bitterly complain about W8 have actually spent time using it before forming their opinion..?


RE: ...
By kleinma on 5/7/2013 1:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
You shouldn't have to very often, so I am curious what you typically would go into the start screen or start menu for in the first place.

Common desktop apps should be pinned to your taskbar, so you shouldn't be going searching for them unless you use them very rarely. Even then it would be better to have a named section of the start screen with shortcuts to those occasional use apps. As far as searching for files on the system, I would be doing that from windows explorer using the built in search in the upper right of any explorer window.

I use Windows 7 at work because I just have too much on this machine to do an overhaul right now. However I use Windows 8 at home since the first preview, and I am almost NEVER in the start screen unless i want to launch a metro app. Once I am on the desktop, I don't find myself going back into the start screen for anything. If you want productivity, you should configure your system to make you more productive based on how you use Windows.


RE: ...
By p05esto on 5/7/2013 11:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. If MS just puts some stupid start button there that takes you to the full screen start menu I will vomit and mail it back to MS. That would be the nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned.... that kind of slap in the face arrogance would send me over the edge. MS is NOT listening to consumers, we've been yelling about their UI mistakes ever since the first beta. Stupid stupid stupid MS.


RE: ...
By Belard on 5/8/2013 9:57:36 AM , Rating: 2
Also... It's so logical to have to right click on the bottom bar on ALL APPS button in metro. So much stupid UI ideas.


RE: ...
By Mint on 5/7/2013 9:59:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Granted that a touch screen costs a lot more than a non-touch screen
No, it doesn't. The incremental cost is maybe $40 at most.

The manufacturers are just milking profits while they can. When enough people become aware of them, there will be more incentive for them to compete on price.


RE: ...
By theapparition on 5/7/2013 11:21:10 AM , Rating: 2
As you said, the cost to implement touch isn't that much more.

The problem is most don't want a touch laptop or computer. Some may say they do, until they actually try to use one.

Phones and tablets are natural for touch. You hold the device at arms length or closer and use it. But for laptops and desktops, you'd basically be sitting in a chair with arm extended fully and suspended in the air trying to manipulate items on the screen. Try doing that for hours on end at the office, or even at home. I see that as being very uncomfortable. To make touch really work, you'd have to be able to hold the monitor. Then it gets hard trying to thumb type on something like that.

Touch on the desktop and laptops as we know it is misplaced. It's OK to add the feature, but I don't see the mouse/touchpad and keyboard going away anytime soon.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/7/2013 12:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure about the assertion that it's only $40 more...even if it is, as noted the unwashed masses are swayed primarily by price - the choice between $280 and $320 probably kills it anyway.

I should have pointed out though that I really think touch screens only make sense on convertibles/hybrids, like the Transformer or the laptops where the screen can flip around for tablet-style use. You're right that even disregarding price, it makes no sense to have a touchscreen on a regular laptop, let alone a desktop. It would be terribly inconvenient to use.


RE: ...
By LordTerrin on 5/7/2013 10:16:39 AM , Rating: 1
I really like the Windows 8 start screen. To be brutally honest, I've gone back to using Windows 7 and I don't really like it anymore. I love that I can hit the new Start key and just type - anything - and the systems finds what I'm looking for. I put the items I use most on the taskbar for easy clicking, but if I want to run a program that's not there, I don't have to click Start --> All Programs --> then find the program's directory and executable, I can just type its name and bam! it's right there.

I understand this won't work for everyone, some people may forget the name of the program they're looking for, or may not want to type in 4 characters - but for me? I really like it a lot better.


RE: ...
By karimtemple on 5/7/2013 10:36:34 AM , Rating: 3
You can do the same thing in Windows 7. Windows key, search, "bam! it's right there."


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/7/2013 3:33:46 PM , Rating: 2
And in Vista. And in XP.

Guy buys iPhone 5: "OMG you mean this thing can send text messages too?!"

...yes. And so could every other phone for the last 15 years.


RE: ...
By Chadder007 on 5/7/2013 10:17:41 AM , Rating: 2
I'm fine with Start screen, what I hate is the way multitasking is on Win 8 along with the push towards touch and away from the mouse.


RE: ...
By kleinma on 5/7/2013 11:26:06 AM , Rating: 2
What can you only do with touch that you can't do with a mouse and keyboard on the OS?


RE: ...
By karimtemple on 5/7/2013 12:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
Fit it in your pocket.

...or purse or whatever.


RE: ...
By xti on 5/7/2013 2:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
DT insists that the start button is why win8 struggles. we get it, geeks miss their start menu.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/7/2013 6:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
More like the opposite. A tech enthusiast is more likely to expend the time and energy to learn that new UI even though they don't like it.

Normal people, who aren't tech enthusiasts, are incredibly unlikely to see any value at all in learning a new UI for no apparent reason, when the UI they've used for the past 20 years has been fine.

Granted that there's so many geeks who also don't like the Metrosexual UI, it's utterly failed amongst the one market segment that might have actually put up with it. If it wasn't a raging POS.


RE: ...
By Gunbuster on 5/7/2013 11:02:25 AM , Rating: 2
I think the exact opposite is going on. Windows laptops are too cheap. Consumers buy them, get frustrated with the crap they bought (Their own fault but just try to tell them that) and then move on to some other product (Macbook, ipad, Android tablet)

At this point the windows brand is tarnished and you have a very hard time getting the consumer to buy back in.

If the Windows OEMs are serious about the brand and keeping customers they need to take the price hit and make the bottom of the barrel hardware better.


RE: ...
By MrBungle123 on 5/7/2013 1:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the Windows OEMs are serious about the brand and keeping customers they need to take the price hit and make the bottom of the barrel hardware better.


They tried that, isn't that what the whole "ultrabook" push is about? Joe average drooling dumb ass doesn't even know how to read a spec sheet for a computer, they just assume that it sucks because whatever brand of computer with 4 generation old budget parts sucks.

They'll buy a $250 ultra budget box at walmart with a single core processor and 1GB of RAM then blame HP or whoever for the computer being slow not realizing that they are the jackass for buying a computer that is as slow as a graphing calculator.


RE: ...
By Mr Perfect on 5/7/2013 2:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I think that's what he was saying. As long as $400 Windows PCs that suck the second you take them out of the box are an option, people will buy them and be disappointed in the platform.

As much as people hate on Apple for their pricing, they do at least make sure their products have a pretty high bar. My girlfriend's six year old Mac hooked right up to our 5GHz wireless N router and started slurping down data at 300Mbs. I was wholly expecting it to be limited to 54MBs wireless G on the 2.4GHz band, but was pleasantly surprised. Today's low end Windows laptops probably still are.


RE: ...
By Solandri on 5/7/2013 3:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
No, the Macs don't meet a pretty high bar. They meet an appropriate bar for their price. I have a friend who refused to spend more than $300 on a laptop. After a few months of looking, I finally found him a decent Dell at that price (i3, 6GB, 300 GB, USB3, eSATA, HDMI). After a few months using it, he complained about it to me saying it wasn't as nice as his iPad. Incidentally, he paid over $700 for his iPad (64GB and custom engraved).

It's only when you compare cheap PCs to mid- to high-priced Macs that the Macs look really good. If you compare them to similarly-priced PCs, the Macs are about normal or (for the high-end Macs) worse. If you want decent quality, you have to be willing to pay for it. The main difference with Apple is that they don't give you a low-quality low-price option.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/7/2013 6:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
My experience has been the polar opposite.

People buying up cheap, low-end laptops for like $279 to $400 or so and loving them, finding them to be more than adequate for their needs and perfectly reliable.

Compared to other people who either have unreliable Apple things and/or who have witnessed said cheapo people being perfectly happy with their low-end Windows machines that have caused them no trouble, and cost a fraction of what the Apple things did.


RE: ...
By Kiffberet on 5/8/2013 8:10:47 AM , Rating: 2
ha ha. Made me laugh out loud in the office. Would up rate if you weren't already 5.


100,000,000 licenses...
By MrBungle123 on 5/7/2013 10:51:10 AM , Rating: 4
I'd be far more interested in knowing the number of activations.




RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By BRB29 on 5/7/2013 12:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
The number of activations should be close to that. The number of active win8 users are probably what you want to look at. I've seen so many people "upgrade" back to win7


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By xti on 5/7/2013 2:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
no...you just dont know a lot of people. people downgrading are a tiny portion of the masses.

dt readers struggle accepting they are a minority.


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By BRB29 on 5/7/2013 3:18:27 PM , Rating: 3
I don't? are you serious? I guess you know all my family, relatives and friends.
My boss at work bought a win8 laptop last year and just want the damn thing to work right. She said it collected dust for 6 months because she hates it. I told her I'd install her win7 using her old license for her. Now she's using it every day. I guess she's one of DT's readers?
I've done this for 3 other friends and my parents. All 3 of my sisters and their husbands reverted their laptops back themselves or paid a shop to do it.
Most of my friends and coworkers did it. The people at work buying new laptops had IT support do it for them.

Most people I know are not tech savvy. When the majority is complaining about the same problem and voluntarily pay to "degrade" to win7, it's a problem.

Why don't you go into Best Buy or Microcenter and ask them how many people ask for Win7 after getting their new laptop.

Last week, I was in Costco looking at laptop and someone was actually looking for a laptop that doesn't have win8.
Yea, all the MS fanboys struggle to admit Metro UI is crap and should only be on a tablet.


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By xti on 5/7/2013 3:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't?

cool.
quote:
are you serious?

yes

quote:
My boss at work bought a win8 laptop last year and just want the damn thing to work right. She said it collected dust for 6 months because she hates it. I told her I'd install her win7 using her old license for her. Now she's using it every day. I guess she's one of DT's readers?

awful example. any large company moves as a whole. it took my 10k+ people employer forever to move to win7. once/if they go to win8, they arent going to give a damn what joe schmo in acct wants as his OS.

quote:
I've done this for 3 other friends and my parents. All 3 of my sisters and their husbands reverted their laptops back themselves or paid a shop to do it.

they are lucky that you know how to do it. still a minority. the masses will stick to what is in the box. accept it.

quote:
Most people I know are not tech savvy. When the majority is complaining about the same problem and voluntarily pay to "degrade" to win7, it's a problem.
there is no proof that there is any substantial % of consumers are downgrading. this is fluff.

quote:
Why don't you go into Best Buy or Microcenter and ask them how many people ask for Win7 after getting their new laptop.
dont need to, everyone knows its a tiny % compared to how many win8 systems get bought.

quote:
Last week, I was in Costco looking at laptop and someone was actually looking for a laptop that doesn't have win8. Yea, all the MS fanboys struggle to admit Metro UI is crap and should only be on a tablet.


could care less what is on a laptop. i am just self aware/smart enough to know that an enthusiast, or anyone that can convert a consumer win8 to win7, is a tiny minority of the consumer population.


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By BRB29 on 5/7/2013 3:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
You are just a troll because you seem to ignore the part where Microsoft admit it's a problem
quote:
One big problem with Windows 8 is that despite the radical overhaul customers are presented with no basic tutorial on how to use the new OS when they turn it on for the first time. Ms. Reller acknowledges that her company has perhaps over-innovated without giving customers a clear learning path commenting, "The learning curve is real, and we need to address it. We're not sitting back and saying, they will get used to it. We've considered a lot of different scenarios to help traditional PC users move forward as well as making usability that much better on all devices."


If you are too dumb to realize that is a typical corporate response for "We are acknowledge our abysmal failure and oversight but we're going to blame it on the learning curve so we don't look that bad"


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/7/2013 8:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
He's just a troll period.


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By xti on 5/8/2013 9:24:18 AM , Rating: 1
thanks cheesyfag.


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/8/2013 4:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
And point proven...


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By xti on 5/9/2013 8:56:23 AM , Rating: 2
youre too cool for me.


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By xti on 5/8/2013 9:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
we were talking about how you think there is this huge number of people downgrade, not that MS admitted they created something that stupid people cant figure out and dorks dont like (dorks dont like change period).

and it still stands:
- downgrade to win7 from win8 consumer product = tiny minority of all win8 purchasers
- other factors FAR outweigh the start menu issue as to why win8 is struggling (tablets, cost, etc)

stick to your own damn wrong point.


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/7/2013 8:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
Don't feed it...


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By Pirks on 5/8/2013 3:22:02 PM , Rating: 1
don't feed cheesyfag! he's very hungry! LOOL :)))


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/8/2013 4:47:57 PM , Rating: 1
Gee, 2 of the biggest trollbags using the same exact word.... If I am just "hungry", you must one fat mother fucker.


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By xti on 5/9/2013 8:58:33 AM , Rating: 2
yes you attention whore. everyone is a "trollbag" cept you. kudos.


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/9/2013 9:13:36 AM , Rating: 1
No moron, not everyone. You, Pirks, and a few others.

Attention whore? Yea..that must be it.

Pot, Kettle...

Bah, why the fuck am I even feeding you anymore, I am done. You are a moron, it's just so blatantly obvious you are trying to get a rise out of people, that's a TROLL. You are a TROLL, period.


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By 91TTZ on 5/7/2013 5:23:32 PM , Rating: 2
DT readers seem to be more in line with the common person than the Windows 8 lovers. Microsoft acknowledged that Windows Vista was a failure, and Windows 8 is selling slower than Vista.


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By BRB29 on 5/7/2013 12:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
On the other hand, I think what MS effectively did was help the migration to tablets. They put a clunky GUI that doesn't work well for traditional PCs but works great for their tablets. Now you have a PC that piss you off and a tablet that can do almost everything the PC can. The choice is easy to switch to tablets.


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By MrBungle123 on 5/7/2013 1:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now you have a PC that piss you off and a tablet that can do almost everything the PC can. The choice is easy to switch to tablets.


Unless you use your computer for something that requires large amounts of desktop real estate and horsepower that is not available in a battery powered device at any price. Then you just get pissed off at MS for screwing up your workflow or refuse to "upgrade"... which is exactly what most of the power/office users are doing, sticking with what works already.


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By BRB29 on 5/7/2013 3:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
I would say accounting and operation management falls under that. It is screwing up most people's workflow. Actually, anything work related is not good with win8. The start menu is just better than the start screen any way you slice it for a pc.

For home use, I still find win8 annoying. Win8 wants you to search for things. I like the hierarchy system the start menu have. It's annoying to use a search bar when 3 clicks will get me there. The fact that the damn Metro screen takes me away from what I'm focusing on doesn't help either. While win8 is better at multitasking, its design makes it hard for users to multitask.

For tablet use, it makes sense as it was designed with that in mind. It's space efficient.


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By Da W on 5/7/2013 3:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
I fail to see any task, beside designing videogames, that my surface pro can't handdle.


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By MrBungle123 on 5/7/2013 5:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
Storing a smallish 200GB movie collection?


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 8:13:47 AM , Rating: 2
I can see plenty of things every day that your tablet can't do.

It can't effectively do multiple spreadsheets and programs and quickly switch between them.

It can't quickly access files and programs unless you have a pinned icon. But then space for that is limited. If you decrease icon size to fit then it is too small. A start menu solves that problem with excellent organization and hierarchy menu in only 1/8 of the screen.

Your tablet cannot effectively display everything as its screen is too small. That makes full screen a necessity. Using full screen for one window sucks when you're trying to do multiple things.

You cannot type at an acceptable speed and ergonomics with a tablet.

The Surface tablet can do just about everything a PC can but it sucks at it. As a regular home user, you probably don't have much problems with it. As a power user or work, it is terrible.


RE: 100,000,000 licenses...
By DiscoWade on 5/7/2013 3:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
I am far more interested in how many Windows 7 licenses have been sold since Windows 8 launched.


Lack of a tutorial is a mindboggling decision
By Mint on 5/7/2013 10:15:45 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
One big problem with Windows 8 is that despite the radical overhaul customers are presented with no basic tutorial on how to use the new OS when they turn it on for the first time.
This would have solved a huge portion of the gripes with Win8.

The tutorial should also include ways of making migration easier for Win 7 users, such as auto-populating the start page based on the previous Win7 start menu, and clear instructions/suggestions for manual layout.

Win8 is a faster way of launching apps, because so many things are just one click away. That people think the opposite speaks to the poor job MS did in communicating how to use the OS.




By karimtemple on 5/7/2013 10:45:02 AM , Rating: 2
There's hardly any true functional difference between the 7 desktop and the 8 Start Screen. 8 simply makes things uglier and more obtrusive. I agree with the direction they tried to take, but the execution was severely lacking.


RE: Lack of a tutorial is a mindboggling decision
By Flunk on 5/7/2013 10:57:40 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree, I like the way the start screen makes use of all available screen space and the lack of faux-glass window borders that do nothing but take up space (but they could still be narrower).

You're right about the desktop not being much different. My favorite Windows 8 feature is the uEFI fastboot feature, it doesn't matter much on my desktop but it's convenient to have my laptop start up in 10 seconds, that's even faster than an Android device.

All in, I don't have a problem with Windows 8 but it doesn't add enough features to be a "must have" upgrade for anyone. I expect Windows 9 will probably bring a bit more to the table.


By karimtemple on 5/7/2013 12:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
A window needs a border. Aero Glass looks better than anything Windows has ever done. 8 "makes use" of available screen space, but without a strong organizational schema it's just clutter, and either way it's dressed up in this flat, square, almost monotone design that isn't appealing in any way. I mean, this isn't a server backend management console we're talking about here. It's a consumer electronics product. It needs to have some appeal.


RE: Lack of a tutorial is a mindboggling decision
By Mint on 5/7/2013 2:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
Hardly any difference?
-If you click the desktop button in 7 to launch a program, you can't restore all the other windows except by clicking on all of them individually from the taskbar. How is the start page more obtrusive than that?
-it doesn't scroll like the 8 start page
-it doesn't have spacers to organize
-you don't get any live tile benefits
-the 8 start page gives you many search results in view at once

The first two points are the biggest, though, and stopped me from using it much as a program launcher in 7 or XP.


RE: Lack of a tutorial is a mindboggling decision
By Belard on 5/7/2013 2:58:49 PM , Rating: 2
er... no, start typing in Win7 Search, it will show results as you type.

In Win7 Start menu, you don't need spacers... its not a full screen thing... they have this thing called FOLDERS.

With Start Menu, you can move programs around, delete the ones you don't want or need. In WinXP, you can re-arrange in any order you want.

Scroll? Start Menu does scroll... it doesn't require a whole damn screen to do it.

Live tiles are stupid since its just a launcher and you aren't living in the launcher.. even running a METRO app... can you see the START PAGE? CAN YOU!? NO, so the live tiles are stupid.

What few good things about Win8, can be added for Win7 for free.

TERACOPY = better file copy window than Win8 in many ways. If a bad file comes across, it doesn't stop... it will finish.

Better Explorer = looks almost like Win8 explorer, but a bit better... again, free.


By Mint on 5/7/2013 9:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
karimtemple was explicitly comparing the Win8 start page to the Win7 desktop. Your whole post is unrelated.

Scrolling is only good when it gives you more working area, e.g. desktop vs start page. If you click on the start menu, then you want to launch something, so what's the point of scrolling through a tiny area instead of directly clicking on what you want? Both the start menu and start page disappear as soon as you launch what you want to.

So what if you aren't living in the launcher? Tiles let every app provide non-intrusive notifications. Check them when you want. For urgent info, there's the system tray, which I didn't want to pollute in Win7.

You didn't even mention the best parts of Win8, like storage spaces and a taskbar for each monitor.


Lack of Affordable HD Laptops is Hurting Win8
By Gunbuster on 5/7/2013 10:53:07 AM , Rating: 1
"Lack of Affordable HD Laptops is Hurting Win8"

What? You mean to tell me consumers have noticed that the glossy/greasy plastic lowest common denominator laptops with grainy washed out 720P screens are shit?

These brands need to figure out that a consumer is going to get that crap $400 acer/HP the first time (They always do. how many times have you told a family member or friend what to get and then they go to best buy and get whatever is cheapest), but after that they are going to buy a shiny iproduct or phablet because they are sick of a terrible product interaction.

News flash: The screen is the main mode of product interaction




RE: Lack of Affordable HD Laptops is Hurting Win8
By txDrum on 5/7/2013 11:22:29 AM , Rating: 2
This is pretty true.

Silvermont is important for both Intel AND Microsoft. They absolutely need it to get Windows 8 Tablets (where windows 8 really does shine and really does improve on Windows 7) into the 250$+ market range, for anywhere from 8" to 10" tablets. Stop giving a laptop with an AMD C-50 6GB of RAM. Put a decent screen into it. That was the first problem. (Oh, and terabyte hard drives on those)

When we get to the 250-300$ range, the "PC" market might die off further, but the "Windows" market should start to recover, which is all that really matters.


By MrBungle123 on 5/7/2013 12:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
250$


I keep seeing this more and more around the web and in text slang... I get the acronyms, I get shortening *some* words (what and when not included), not trying to be the grammar police I know we all make typos, but seriously the dollar sign at the end of the number?!


By Cheesew1z69 on 5/7/2013 1:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
You are complaining about a dollar sign? You may need to get a life...


By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 8:16:41 AM , Rating: 2
because it's a disconnect between language and train of thought. We say 250 dollars. We don't say dollars 250.

When we type it ends up being 250$ if we don't anticipate it.


FAIL
By Ramon Zarat on 5/7/2013 8:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
windows 8 is an absolute failure with only 3.8% of the market after 7 months of sale. Even Vista has more market share at 4.75%! Amazingly, after 11 years or service, XP STILL has 38% and 7 sit on top at 44%!!!

That 100 millions licenses figure is obviously wayyyy over inflated. There are a lot of them sitting on store shelves, in OEM inventories and most probably even include RT sales. Last but not least, practically every corporate PC and laptop are currently sold with a Windows 8 license, but pre-downgraded to 7.

Microsoft is clearly desperate by going all in blind with their Microsoft store and cloud direct closed ecosystem strategy. They are failing in phone and tablet market, the PC side is sliding fast and they even managed to draw very bad vibes around the Xbox 720 and it not even out yet!

Simply put, Microsoft is not nearly as relevant to the IT industry as they were not so long ago and they are dramatically failing at re-inventing themselves. No real innovation, total lack of cohesion, very bad execution and appalling public relation. They are in panic mode, throwing themselves all over the place achieving nothing but complete disaster.

Bill need to come back on top before it's too late...




RE: FAIL
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/7/2013 8:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Simply put, Microsoft is not nearly as relevant to the IT industry as they were not so long ago
Yea, ok. LOL


RE: FAIL
By Ramon Zarat on 5/7/2013 9:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
What I meant by that is there's now a LOT more platforms to choose from beside Microsoft to do your daily computing stuff.

It's gona be very hard for anyone to argue against the fact we're FAR from the time when MS practically ruled alone...


RE: FAIL
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 8:21:00 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, but there's nothing that can replace a whole Office Suite. There's no platform that is compatible with every PC parts out there. We really don't have much to choose from.

Yes, the other platforms are chipping away at Microsoft but they are still very dominant. There's absolutely no replacement for a PC right now. In some cases, a Mac can be used but the vast majority is still PC running windows, office, and x86 applications.


By dashrendar on 5/7/2013 11:47:13 AM , Rating: 3
A registry setting to enable booting into desktop mode is a joke. A control panel option is a tad better than no option at all, but it's nowhere near enough to win people back.

Windows 8 needs to default to desktop mode on actual desktops and non-touch devices, and to Metro mode on touch devices.




By Ktracho on 5/7/2013 1:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think a lot of critics would be happy if MS offered a way for people with new PCs to install Windows 7 for free (or even a small fee) - all the complaints about the start screen and no start button would disappear. Disregarding tablet and phone users, a lot of people just don't need faster computers or any new features in their OS's. In fact, at work, I upgraded my Mac laptop to Mountain Lion, only to go back to Snow Leopard because I couldn't get it to interface well with our networking environment, among other reasons related to it being too much like iOS (which means I won't be asking them to buy me a new Apple laptop any time soon, since no new laptops can run Snow Leopard). So, yeah, Microsoft could keep a lot of people happy by continuing to sell them Windows 7.


!!
By AngelaCarter08 on 5/8/2013 1:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
If you think Nancy`s story is terrific,, five weaks-ago my girlfriend's mum basically also made $8859 just sitting there seventeen hours a week from there apartment and there roomate's sister`s neighbour has done this for nine months and broght in over $8859 part time on there labtop. applie the guide on this web-site. Jump44.comCHECK IT OUT




RE: !!
By Motoman on 5/8/2013 2:03:49 PM , Rating: 3
I had anal sex with your roomate's sister's neighbor's daughter and posted pictures on the interweb at www.lemonparty dot org

CHECK IT OUT


China name plate co. ltd.
By cindywu on 5/8/2013 6:47:46 AM , Rating: 2
although this decrease in market doesn't include other computers with Windows 8 like the surface or any of the other tablet form factors (not even the ones which have x86 processors!) so the decline probably isn't as bad as it appears (not saying its not declining...)
http://goo.gl/OItwV




By ResStellarum on 5/9/2013 8:45:36 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't Surface a tablet, and therefore shouldn't be counted as part of the PC market. If it is, then the figures are even worse because Windows 8 tablets are then being mistakenly included in two markets.


Typical corporate BS to cover a lemon.
By jmarchel on 5/7/2013 11:00:06 AM , Rating: 1
MSFT ! You didn't over-innovated. More proper in this case would be: We screw up ! Stop that corporate mumbo jumbo and call it for what it is.

Although I agree with you that lack of laptops with HD screens is a problem, I wouldn't associate this with Windows 8 fiasco. When I buy a laptop, I specifically look for HD screen but it is just fine if it comes with Windows 7. In fact it is preferable.

Memo to manufaturers, please bring back a choice of screen resolution. Retina display is a selling point for some of us. Speaking of choice, please, also give us the choice to UPGRADE from Windows 8 to Windows 7 if you still can.

About the start button Microsoft. Don't give us semblance of "start button". If you plan just "semblance" then you either have no clue or you still belive that you can force customers to like the abomination. The "start button" is a code word. Let me translate it for you:

Code word: Bring back start button
Meaning: Take that Metro piece of sh#%@! and shove it up your a... We don't want any of it. No start screen, no charms, no active corners, no nothing even remotely related to Metro. Got it ?

J




By max_payne on 5/8/2013 8:55:10 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt that MS will be reading you but if they do, don't forget to bring back aero too ! Your Linux looking windows are pretty primitive.


Hmm...
By SunLord on 5/7/2013 2:58:02 PM , Rating: 3
I'd rather know if this is number of activations Windows 8 has seen or just how many licenses Microsoft has passed off to OEMs




Crap PCs
By Da W on 5/7/2013 9:46:19 AM , Rating: 2
May be its the DELL, HP, ACER & all that are making crap.




A couple mistakes
By Mint on 5/7/2013 9:50:44 AM , Rating: 2
I think you meant to title the second section, "Lack of Affordable Touchscreen Laptops is Hurting Win8"

Also, the Acer in your image is the 11.6 inch P3, not the 15.6 inch R7. You mixed up the images in your Acer article as well:

http://www.dailytech.com/Acer+Looks+for+Revival+Wi...




um..
By Flunk on 5/7/2013 10:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
The image with the caption: "Surface Pro helped cover nonexistent Surface RT sales. [Image Source: Microsoft]" looks like an Ideapad Yoga, not a Surface Pro.




By WinstonSmith on 5/7/2013 11:10:41 AM , Rating: 2
"Windows 8 reached 60 million unit sales by January, faster than Windows 7. But since it has only moved 40 million units. By contrast, Windows 7 sales started off slower then rapidly escalated."

I'll bet the vast majority of these sales are OEM sales to manufacturers.

I had planned to upgrade my three year old Win7 laptop with a Win7 laptop during the 2012 Black Friday sales expecting that there'd be tons of such laptops available on sale because Microsoft made its big Win8 push right before Thanksgiving. No such luck! Why? Every retailer took Win7 laptops off their shelves and sent them back to their warehouses before putting the Win8 machines on display. Those Win7 machines then simply disappeared prior to Black Friday, I assume via on-line sales because I saw none on Black Friday sales, completely unlike the transition between Vista and Win7. People snapped them up to avoid being forced to buy a tablet/smartphone/touchscreen/tiles OS/UI on a laptop without a touchscreen.




Seen this before...
By kmmatney on 5/7/2013 11:41:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft is reportedly working on a smaller, more affordable Surface, in line with Apple and Samsung's strategy.


Let me guess - a 7" surface priced exactly the same as the iPad mini. That will go well...




PC 14% market drop
By Belard on 5/7/2013 2:52:57 PM , Rating: 2
MS can say anything they want, but can they prove it?
Internet usage shows very low actual Win8 users out there.
Their BIG push only came between NOV~FEB when they had the $40 Win8 upgrade for XP~Win7 users. That is now over.

I DON'T know anyone, personally who has bought the $40 upgrade.

MS counts every PC sold by the OEMs as a Win8 sales, even if it sold with Windows7 installed (Lenovo ThinkPads for example)

Does MS still count their Win7 sales, yes... but have we seen those numbers?

In reality, MS *might* have only actually sold 70m and we wouldn't know. But IF PC sales continues to be about 15% lower per qtr.... the big OEM PC market is in trouble.

Windows OS is simply NOT needed today... this is no longer 1998 or even 2008. Most people DO NOT NEED Microsoft.

PC Games? Not needed... I've been a PC gamer since Amiga died. AAA title games are console only... I notice this for all the TV ADs that show and say "Xbox 360 and PS3 only". So having a $1000 Gaming PC with a $500 video card becomes... pointless. And many of the PC games out there are converted FROM Consoles so they are not even close to pushing the hardware.

Do we need PC for internet? No... Everything has internet access. Half of my internet usage is NOT with Windows.

Adobe is moving to cloud/browser for their products. Good thing is, that means possible Linux compatibility. Bad thing is, the price... ($30 a month for PhotoShop, $50 a month for the whole suite).

Other than Quickbooks / TurboTax / MSOffice and Adobe... most people DO NOT NEED WINDOWS!

Unfortunately, MS will continue to make money off their Android tax for every piece of hardware sold. But nothing off of Linux, which is very much a real desktop OS.

Time to move on... I've started already.




By Schmide on 5/7/2013 4:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
IE The Windows 8.1 Blue IT




By max_payne on 5/7/2013 7:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
for sure I can see here a lot of people who HATE windows 8 with a VENGEANCE! Probably because MS tried to strong arms everyone with their questionable strategy. MS has put his foot (well, feet) deep down their throat just because it did not want to give people a CHOICE. Someone(s) need to be fired for that inexplicable stupidity. It has to be pretty high in the management chain as well.




Classic Shell
By vcolon on 5/8/2013 7:59:51 AM , Rating: 2
The Open Source community is a step ahead. http://www.classicshell.net/




Licence != Sale
By ResStellarum on 5/9/2013 8:38:57 AM , Rating: 2
If this demonstrates anything it's that licence sales numbers are meaningless except for PR and perhaps appeasing shareholders. There's absolutely no correlation between a licence sale and an end user buying a PC.

I guess it's a good way for Microsoft to pat itself on the back, but if the PC market is declining so rapidly and the same number of licences are being sold, it just goes to prove that these licence sales don't reflect the real marketplace.

At least analysts can now safely ignore these bogus figures Microsoft touts every few months.




!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By BarbaraRedding14 on 5/9/2013 4:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
up to I saw the draft of $4609, I didn't believe ...that...my cousin was like truly erning money in there spare time online.. there neighbour started doing this for less than twentey months and just now paid for the dept on their apartment and bourt a new McLaren F1. read more at, Jump44.comCHECK IT OUT




!!!!!!!!
By MelodyRamos49 on 5/12/2013 4:37:05 AM , Rating: 2
Anthony. even though Susan`s blog is neat, on friday I bought a great Lotus Elise from earning $9314 this - four weeks past and just over 10-k last month. without a doubt its the most-financialy rewarding I've ever done. I started this five months/ago and pretty much straight away started making a nice more than $81 per hour. I work through this link, Bow6.comTAKE A LOOK




lame
By p05esto on 5/7/2013 11:21:42 PM , Rating: 1
I don't care what they call it, but the desktop interface MUST have a way to quickly get at my dozens and dozens of applications. I need one-click access to everything, ideally in cascading out menu structure (like start menu of course). I also have NO use for that stupid start screen... only dipshits and weak users addicted to social media would like that POS. Basically the same people that think Facebook and Apple is cool would probably like the Win8 start screen. So freaking useless I can't express myself properly here. Wake up MS.




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki