backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by kmmatney.. on Oct 22 at 5:05 PM

Allen says people will get used to the changes

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen left the company in 1983 after being diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease. He has recently made comments about Windows 8 and believes that people will eventually learn to like the OS. However, he recently stated that Windows 8 was "puzzling" and "confusing initially." Allen made comments on a post this week made on his personal blog.
 
Allen says that he has been running Windows 8 Release Preview, which shipped back in May, on his desktop and on a Samsung 700T. That is the tablet that Microsoft is been handing out to developers, analysts, and some members of the press to get them to try out Windows 8.
 
"The bimodal user experience can introduce confusion, especially when two versions of the same application -- such as Internet Explorer -- can be opened and run simultaneously," Allen said.
 
The two user interfaces that Allen is talking about are the Windows 8 style, previously called Metro, offering a minimalist look and the classic view that looks like a slightly modified Windows 7 desktop. Allen also criticized some of the changes to the operating system that have been voiced by other users as well.
 
"Strangely, there is no way to set the desktop as your default view (there should be)," Allen wrote. "This is one of the single biggest changes in Windows 8: the lack of the familiar Start menu."
 
"I found myself wishing that a Power tile was available on the Start screen to make these commands more accessible," Allen continued.
 
Ultimately, Allen says that even with the quirks of the new operating system that Windows 8 would be manageable by users. He also believes that Microsoft will address any issues with its next release. Some of the issues Allen mentions are reasons beleived to be contributing to the slow adoption of early versions of Windows 8.

Source: ComputerWorld



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: 2 Things
By inteli722 on 10/3/2012 8:52:30 AM , Rating: -1
Well from what I heard, the faster boot/shutdown times are due to the fact that they don't have bios, which is a big thing for people who are into computers. I agree, they need to launch basically a Windows 7.5 for the desktop, and what is Windows 8 will be for tablets and convertibles. Modern (what Metro is known as now because of some lawsuit) UI is touchscreen oriented (although it works half-decent with a controller), first seeing action on Windows Phone 7, now Windows 8. I agree, and I really don't feel like Windows 8 will apply well to my 1920x1200 screen, and I'm not a casual user. I like to play "Hardcore" games, not casual games. I can see use of Windows 8 for the casual users, essentially making it a gigantic Tablet, with web browsing and such (If the Raspberry Pi was enough, it would be PERFECT for this kind of thing), but in the hardcore environment, with gamers and powerusers, I really don't see Windows 8 catching on.


RE: 2 Things
By Sazabi19 on 10/3/2012 9:24:30 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, my gaming rig at home is my main computer. I have an SSD (boot device), Intel i7 980 (not the X), 12 gigs of RAM, and 2x 6970's. I want to install 8 just to see how fast it comes up, loads initial apps, and just handles various daily tasks; also gaming. Other than that I still don't want to piddle with anything other than the desk, which will probably keep me away. The other thing that really scares me is the Windows app store. Most of my games are on Steam and I know Gabe said something about Steam possibly being affected. I'm fuzzy on the details so if anyone can help explain that I would appreciate it. If I understand correctly, It won't have a metro app (it will always be known as Metro to me, and not in a good loving way) for it but will be able to still be installed on the desktop? I don't like Games for Windows Live titles, the way you have to log in to them is intrusive and very in your face, I avoid them when I can. I have 7 Ultimate 64, I may try 8 like I said to see how it runs, If I don't like it (supposed to be cheap) I may just give it to my brother who is currently running Vista Ultimate 64. On a side note, I never had a problem with Vista accept for the very beginning. I like being an early adopter so I am aware there are risks doing that. It was developers that cost MS their Vista image by not making drivers. Even then it was a good OS by SP1 but had such a stigma for sucking so hard that a lot of people still stayed away from it. Sure it used a few more resources than it should have and had a bit of bloat, but honestly it wasn't that bad. If Win 8 wasn't as cheap as they said I would not go anywhere near it. I will still not probably get this as soon as it comes out as I have Vista and 7, I will wait to see what it is missing and what has changed since the preview. I'm fine with change, when it makes sense, this to me seems like a step in the wrong direction. I know however that others disagree and like it, to each his own.


RE: 2 Things
By Labotomizer on 10/3/2012 10:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
A couple of things:

1. Gabe is just scared of competition is all his rant really panned out to be. Steam is not going to stop working on x86/64 systems. There isn't any difference in how programs run. I have just over 100 games on Steam and they all work perfectly fine under Windows 8. Sure, you'll be able to buy games from the Windows Store but those will mostly be Angry Bird and Temple Run kind of games. Also, GfWL is dead and is being replaced with Xbox Live, which I think we can all agree is a pretty solid platform at this point. That's probably the other reason Gabe is worried about Windows 8.

2. Start Screen or Start Menu. On a desktop there is almost no difference. Live tiles? I have everything I use on a daily basis pinned to the taskbar, just like I did with Windows 7, and my desktop icons turned completely off. On my laptop/desktop I almost never access the Start Screen. And when I do, I hit the Windows Key, start typing what I'm looking for, and either click it or hit enter. It works exactly like the old Start Menu did for me. The only difference is it takes up the screen. And as Metro apps become more common, and I purchase said apps for my Windows 8 tablet, I can use them seamlessly on my desktop in the event I need to. I can't say how common that will be, it might be all the time in a year or two, but it's a feature that is certainly worth having.

Every other feature of the OS is improved. Resource management, networking, file copy, native Air Card class drivers, metered connectivity, boot and sleep times, stability and the list goes on.

I'm not saying your opinion on the Start Screen is invalid, because it's not given that it's an opinion. I'm just advising that with a slightly different perspective you might find it tolerable. Can I say the Start Screen has increased productivity? Not in the slightest. Has it hampered it? Not even a little bit. The rest of the Windows 8 features however make for a huge net gain.


RE: 2 Things
By Mint on 10/3/2012 11:23:00 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The only difference is it takes up the screen.
It's really amazing how this one little thing - which actually provides a lot of benefits - is at the root of almost all negative opinion of the OS.

Why do we need to see our desktop and/or other running applications in the background if we've decided to launch another app?

By modernizing the start menu, Win8 lets you have way more programs immediately available once you click it (while simultaneously making the hitzone for each program much bigger) compared to Win7, shows you more results when you type to search, and gives you a giant notification area for all your apps that you can instantly see.

The only non-nitpicking valid complaint I can think of is that Win8 is missing tile folders, but if you have so many programs that wheeling the start page doesn't work, then you really should be using the keyboard to find programs anyway. That's already the most efficient way to use Win7/Vista, and they encouraged you to do with their single-column start menus.


RE: 2 Things
By Fujikoma on 10/3/2012 12:39:23 PM , Rating: 5
"Why do we need to see our desktop and/or other running applications in the background if we've decided to launch another app?"
Because some of us use our computers for work, which means I have to manage spreadsheets while collating information from SAP... side by side comparisons with different company authorized software. There is no, one, catch all program to do what we need it to do. That's why I have two screens (work won't pay for a large one) with my progams right next to each other, so I don't have to keep bouncing back and forth between foreground and background apps.
It's called real world use and while Win8 is fine for soft work, browsing the web or playing simple games, it has no place in a lot of business environments.


RE: 2 Things
By Labotomizer on 10/3/2012 12:50:40 PM , Rating: 1
You read a little too much into what he said. Also, the original desktop works exactly like it always has. I can have as many programs open as once as I'd like, which I do all the time on this very computer I'm posting this from. What the person you're responding to is saying that when you're in the process of launching another application you don't need to see those other programs. When you're going to launch Excel you don't need to see SAP. Once it's running then you want access to both, which works just fine.

For those reasons I don't see Metro replacing the traditional desktop, merely augmenting it. SAP may have an App written for Metro that will be useful on tablets and phones, but not something you're likely to use on your desktop at work. And there are so many programs that are in the same situation it's not even funny. Including Dynamics, Great Plains and Office. They may have Metro counterparts, the way IE does, but the original will stay in Desktop land.

Why is that so hard to understand? Everything else about Windows 8, Group Policy, Windows to Go, Bitlocker, VHD boot, Hyper V are all benefits to business. You think a slight change from a start menu to a start screen is a deal breaker?


RE: 2 Things
By MrBlastman on 10/3/2012 3:33:21 PM , Rating: 5
The number one way to piss off an end-user is to mess with their UI.


RE: 2 Things
By Mint on 10/3/2012 12:59:05 PM , Rating: 5
Nothing you said is impeded in the slightest with Win8. My point completely flew over your head.

Why do you need to look at your desktop during the few seconds that you're finding the menu item (which will be quicker on Win 8 for all the reasons I mentioned above) that you're going to click to launch another desktop app?

If you don't like/need Modern UI apps, don't use them. The start page then simply becomes a superior start menu for launching desktop apps.


RE: 2 Things
By CyranD on 10/3/2012 2:57:28 PM , Rating: 2
I open programs and perform various other tasks all the time while am watching a video in a web browser. The start menu small enough that it don't overlap the video am watching so I can continue to watch while am opening programs.

I don't need to be completely focus on what am watching for me to catch important things with the corner of my eye to let me know when to pay attention. I cant do that through if the video not on the screen.


RE: 2 Things
By Mint on 10/3/2012 4:24:40 PM , Rating: 1
Ahh, suddenly the Win8 hate makes a lot of sense.

When you have a webpage open with a video,
AND when that video is away from the left side of the screen so as not to be impeded by the Win7 start menu anyway,
AND needing to launch an app that isn't pinned to the taskbar,
WHILE your eyes and mind are navigating the start menu,
COINCIDENTALLY happening simultaneous to an important event in that video which cannot be heard but can be peripherally seen,
DESPITE the app you're about to launch likely interrupting your view of the video anyway,
NOTWITHSTANDING the potential extra clicks/scrolling/time involved with the tiny Win7 start menu vs the Win8 start page,
it is clear that Win7 is a superior way of launching programs than Win8 because your peripheral vision of said video is unimpeded for a couple seconds.

Man, I must come across that scenario 100 times a day. How silly of me to put all the other tangible benefits of the start page over such an oversight...


RE: 2 Things
By MrBungle123 on 10/4/2012 3:06:06 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly Mint is more intelligent than all of the rest of us. Until I read his belittling comments I did not fully comprehend the superiority of a low information density menu made up of highly contrasting bright colors!

Not only can you save time and open programs faster by moving your mouse 6x further than was previously necessary you also get the added benefit of flashy notifications that are hidden most of the time with the menu you will more than likely try and find ways of avoiding! This is just fantastic!

I've even heard from others that the GUI in Windows 8 is so awesome that all you need to do is memorize 57 keyboard shortcut commands and you wont have to spend any time at all hunting for hidden buttons or features! That is so much easier than those useless buttons and cascading menus where you can just see all the places to click with a label telling you what clicking there will do... thank god all that is gone! I can't wait until someone calls me having a computer problem and I get to explain how to navigate to hidden options over the phone, think of how much time this will save all the countless helpdesks out there?!

I just can't see why anyone would resist switching over?! There are absolutely no drawbacks at all!


RE: 2 Things
By Mint on 10/4/2012 12:22:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
low information density menu
Oh, density is what matters now? So instead of 50 results, it's better to have 15, because they're packed into a tiny space. You know what, let's shrink the Win7 menu further, reducing the font size to 4 pt because density is what matters instead of total information.
quote:
Not only can you save time and open programs faster by moving your mouse 6x further than was previously necessary
Mouse movement? Oh man, what a hardship. Damn all those large high-res display makers for making all your programs require large movements. The industry should be moving to 8" 640x480 screens to reduce mouse movement.

Yeah, you're totally right. MS should have gone into the opposite direction, presenting less info in a tighter space and making their next OS even more of a clickfest than Win7.
quote:
I've even heard from others that the GUI in Windows 8 is so awesome that all you need to do is memorize 57 keyboard shortcut commands
If you hate the modern UI and want to use the start page almost exclusively as a desktop app launcher, then what keyboard memorization do you need? What on earth are you bitching about?


RE: 2 Things
By Moishe on 10/5/2012 8:33:53 AM , Rating: 2
You're being obtuse.

My daily workflow involves 20+ windows at the same time spread over 2 large screens. Some windows need constant visibility, and some can overlap. The full screen mode screws with that and pisses me off. For me (and MANY of us) productivity is being able to do a few things at once.

So yes, the desktop mode should work, but not the full screen "start" menu and the modern UI gets in the way. I don't care if I have to click to get to the desktop. That's one more thing for me to do, but my computer is fast and I don't care.

I do care about too many introduced interruptions.


RE: 2 Things
By Mint on 10/5/2012 9:56:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For me (and MANY of us) productivity is being able to do a few things at once.
Win8 doesn't impede that in the slightest. You can have 2 monitors in Win8 running desktop with 20+ windows, and dual taskbars is very useful as well. A heavy multitasker like yourself will be feeling the benefits of that for 100x as much time as you'll be spending on the start page.

The notion that the start page "interrupts" you and makes you "leave" the destop is entirely psychological. When you click on the start menu in Win7, you're taking your attention away from apps well.

What is so critical about your peripheral vision for a couple seconds when launching apps that are used too rarely for you to pin them to the taskbar?

And you're accusing me of being obtuse?

When you decide that you want to launch an app, doesn't it make sense for an OS to focus on quickly launching that app? If an app is pinned to the Win 7 start menu or a recent item, or if you type a couple letters and the result you're looking for is among the top, then sure, Win7 will tie Win8 in finding/launching what you want. If not, then Win8 will likely get you going faster: More search results, more one-click items (and their 2D spatial organization), quick access menu, etc.


RE: 2 Things
By erple2 on 10/13/2012 2:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you click on the start menu in Win7,


Who the hell clicks on the start menu? Super-key and type. That was one of the greatest revolutions that has happened to the GUI in as long as I can remember. Ironic that using the keyboard makes so much more sense in a GUI than a slow, imprecise mouse...


RE: 2 Things
By Reclaimer77 on 10/3/2012 5:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you Windows 8 homers ask such stupid questions as if you've never used an OS before?


RE: 2 Things
By Mint on 10/4/2012 12:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that you got rated to a 5 for falsely implying no side-by-side ability in Win8 and bring up points that are 100% unrelated to everything in my post and tell me all I need to know about Win8 haters and, sadly, DT in general.

What a joke.

Once again, tell me how using the Win8 start page simply as a desktop app launcher - that, BTW, is active only for a couple seconds when the app to be launched doesn't have an icon on the desktop/taskbar - is overall worse than the win 7 start menu.


RE: 2 Things
By Moishe on 10/5/2012 8:36:50 AM , Rating: 1
This was already explained. The start menu is not full screen, and THAT is the difference.

Your "just a few seconds" reason is not good enough. Just a few seconds of interruption here and there is annoying to many of us. Maybe you're one of the ones who doesn't care. that's fine, but don't disregard our experiences.


RE: 2 Things
By Mint on 10/5/2012 10:07:31 AM , Rating: 1
How is launching an app in Win7 not an interruption? You move your eyes to the corner, click, go to Programs, click, scroll, read a bunch of folder names, click, etc. The fact that you are going to the start menu means you are intentionally interrupting yourself to start a new task anyway. 90% of the programs you launch will interrupt your view anyway.

Win8 shortens that "interruption" substantially.


RE: 2 Things
By Jackthegreen on 10/9/2012 4:57:44 AM , Rating: 2
The primary interruption, from what I can gather, is having to devote the entire screen to open a new application in Win 8, while in Win 7 it's just opening the start menu and poking around a little. I suspect you'll continue to scoff at the idea of Win 8 being more of an interruption than Win 7, but you are clearly not one of those people who has such a workflow routine that even "little" differences like that can be distracting enough to lose focus for a bit, and thus productivity.

Instead of continuing this argument for Win 8 (which you come off as stubborn and unpleasant by the way, and so does most everyone else now that they're knee deep in it), might I recommend simply letting them let their concerns be known and not nitpick over whether you think they're "valid?" If they don't get the option to do what they want they'll adapt or continue to use Win 7, which should have no effect on you. Likewise, if the changes to Win 8 are added as an option then it doesn't affect you because you can still use your preferred way of opening your apps. There is no chance MS would entirely revert back to the start menu at this point, in case that was your concern.


RE: 2 Things
By FaaR on 10/3/2012 12:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Steam is not going to stop working on x86/64 systems.

He actually never said that. What I think he's bothered about is that if you want to make apps available for metro you CAN'T DO THAT unless your name is Microsoft. And since Steam is all about apps - games OR productivity now - that means a part of the windows ecosystem is forever barred to Steam.

A growing, possibly exploding part, if MS manages to ride the tablet wave the same way Apple and to some extent Samsung has. And that's worrysome to a guy like Gabe; his company's prosperity down the road might actually hinge on it.

Not that you seem to care about this, though.


RE: 2 Things
By Labotomizer on 10/3/2012 12:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
There's a very good reason for that and it centers around security.

And Steam, as it works TODAY, will not lose any functionality. Sure, they may not gain access to Metro, but they don't lose anything.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














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