Slashdot Mirror
The Three Flavors of Windows 8
First time accepted submitter Kelerei writes "Windows 8 has been confirmed as the official name for the next x86/x64 version of Windows, which will be released in two editions: a home edition (simply named 'Windows 8') featuring an updated Windows Explorer, Task Manager, improved multi-monitor support and 'the ability to switch languages on the fly,' while a professional edition ('Windows 8 Pro') adds features for businesses and technical professionals such as encryption, virtualization and domain connectivity. Windows Media Center will not be included in the Pro edition and will be available separately as part of a 'media pack' add-on. A third edition, branded as 'Windows RT,' will be available for ARM-based systems."
Oh look, a shill post in the first message.
You're supposed to wait a bit so as to not be so obvious. /tip
--
BMO
With all the boss features... PC management and deployment, advanced security, virtualization, mobility scenarios and so on
http://www.cmswire.com/cms/mobile/official-microsoft-names-windows-8-for-intel-windows-rt-for-arm-015185.php
Growing up "RT" was code for "Rock Tit" A.K.A. Stiff Nipples. Although I can't say that the RT name choice gives me any...
You've been running Windows 8 on the Desktop? I'm not ranting, I'm interested. What's your setup? What do you do "normally"?
I'm asking because I'm more of the "tiled window manager" and "I want my windows where I want them" type, and I can hardly imagine working with something like Gnome 3, Unity or Metro (hell, I have trouble working with Explorer)...but that doesn't mean that I'm resistant to learning the benefits of those system.
From the article: "All editions of Windows 8 offer a no-compromise experience." But from previous articles, we know that Windows RT (formerly Windows on ARM) is licensed under terms that prohibit the manufacturer from allowing a dual boot with Android, Ubuntu, *BSD, or any other operating system. So the closest thing to a no-compromise Windows tablet would probably have to be an Atom tablet.
Does the fourth flavor, torrent, have pro + the media addon "slipstreamed" in or what?
I'm not about to actually use anything other than XP at home or work anytime soon, but its interesting to know about.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
We all know Windows 8 is going to be the next "Terrible Windows".
Windows 9 is where it is at. If they even survive.
I just cannot fathom why at this point that Microsoft still does not grasp how important security is.
Nothing makes this more clear than withholding advanced encryption features or even virtualization from the general consumer version.
This continued split of versions at this point is just absurd, and confusing to the market. You'd think by now Microsoft would learn to simplify - I guess not. Must be nice being a monopoly that scores of companies have no choice but to ship whatever you put out.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The early rumors were that Windows 8 would be x64 only (like Server 2008 R2). From an end-user-with-a-lot-of-32bit-apps perspective, I'm glad to see they're supporting x86. From a sys-admin-who-hates-having-two-architectures-per-print-driver perspective, I can't wait until x86 is dropped altogether.
I've been working with Win8 at Intel where I test graphics card drivers. Of all the Windows versions I've ever used (all the way back to v3.1) Windows 8 is the most retarded version I've ever seen! Not only does it hide even more from the user, treating you like you're some mentally-challenged child that has to be kept from hurting yourself, but flat-out stupid things like Safe Mode access being disabled by default! "System Restore" or "System Repair" should NOT be the only option you have when something goes wrong! Yes, you can enable it, but you have to jump through some hoops to do it! Speaking of hoops, you have to jump through a few of those just to get to what in previous versions of Windows were basic system resources, like the Control Panel, My Computer, etc.. Seriously, it's like it's designed for idiot children. At least with Windows 7, I can turn off all the bullshit and make it a functional operating system, but Windows 8, by design, won't let you do enough of that to satisfy me. Is this what computing is coming down to? I may switch everything over to Linux yet.
I was going to accuse you of giving a knee-jerk reaction against anyone saying something good about Windows 8, but then I checked OP's post history.
This is literally his only post, so yea, shill.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
How many people have a dual socket system at home and are not considered a computer professional?
Suck it up and deduct the expense from your business taxes.
Product differentiation = tiered profit structure. Makes perfect sense, and those who don't like that can get their Windows from the usual sources.
Windows BTW IS "free" if your time and effort to pirate it, install it then fend off viri and malware is worthless.
Screw that. I'd rather run Linux than Windows, so I do. If an employer chooses to inflict Windows on me, they can pay for it.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
While I will admit that the technical underpinnings of Windows 8 and Server 8 are a pretty reasonable improvement over 7/2008 R2, the Metro UI is a big step backwards in terms of desktop usability for all but the most basic users and the way they've included some bits of it - seemingly at random - in the server platform is mystifying to me.
If the whole Metro tiles thing was just a front-end to make it easier for average users to find, organise and launch their applications then I'd be fine with it, but it's not, it's a whole new suite of "apps" in addition to all the existing desktop versions, only without silly things like multitasking included.
Put it this way, as someone who has been using Windows in one form or another for close to 20 years, I really shouldn't have to spend 5 minutes trying to work out where the hell they've moved "Shut Down" to because it's behind a totally un-signposted hotspot at the bottom right of the taskbar and then a non-obvious icon labelled "Settings" and finally the "Power" option under that (Yes, Alt-F4 still works, but that's hardly the point, or useful over a windowed RDP session).
The customers I support will continue to buy whatever the cheapest version is and then get pissed at me when I can't join it to their domain.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Microsoft is trying to "appropriate" another established term to create an air of legitimacy of their products and imply capabilities that they do not have.
RTOS is a common name for a "Real-Time Operating System", systems that are commonly used on ARM, and, as their name implies, have real-time capabilities that Windows, of any flavor, never had and likely never will. Please note that "RT" was used for this purpose since at least 1973 (RT-11 operating system by DEC).
Let's look back to Microsoft previous efforts on this path. Many years ago they pulled out of nowhere the "Digital Nervous System" advertising slogan, apparently for no purpose other than to create confusion with DNS, Domain Name System. More recently, again, out of nowhere they called one of the descendants of their unholy marriage of OLE and DDE, ".NET", what would be a really stupid name if it wasn't a standard top-leven domain, and sounded somehow related to ".com", a typical term for an Internet-based business. On top of this, Microsoft was extremely persistent in inventing trademarked terms that sound generic -- "Windows", "Word" are actual trademarks, and "MS SQL Server" is constantly mentioned as "SQL Server", even though the former is a Microsoft trademark and the latter is a generic name for a database server using SQL language that covers dozens of Microsoft competitors.
How about a lawsuit from all RTOS developers (including at least two flavors of Linux-based ones)?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
For some reason a lot of sites seem to miss it. There are four versions, Windows 8, Windows 8 Pro, Windows 8 Enterprise and Windows RT. http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2012/04/16/announcing-the-windows-8-editions.aspx
Or make a plain "Windows 8" for home users and "Windows 8 Pro" for business/power users.
That's what they did. The third version is for ARM processors, which obviously needs to be different.
The Metro UI is a heap of shit on the desktop. It wastes too much space, requires far too much mouse travel, is wholly unsuited to the 100+ program icons that most users would have in a typical start menu. It isn't even discoverable either, being hidden in the corner with no clue its there. It can be fixed but as it stands in the consumer preview it is horrible. It needs a launcher icon (e.g. reinstate the windows logo), multiple selection, sort functionality, zoom in / zoom out, program grouping and more besides. With all that it might stand a chance as a replacement for the Start menu.
I've tried it out on the desktop, and the metro on desktop thing leaves much to be desired, but they at least left the desktop like it was in windows 7. If you never use the metro apps, the goofy start screen just acts like a giant start menu, even with incremental search. Once you've launched a desktop app, it works like always with the taskbar on the bottom (that they've finally stretched over all the monitors). My biggest complaint is that it's basically like working with two computers - one running metro, and one running windows, and switching back and forth is far from seamless.
Windows RT : as in... Windows Russia Today?
No, it's the "arty" flavor of Windows 8, meant to compete with the Mac.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
After installation, a glowing hologram of Clippy appears and gives the user three choices.
Red flavor - Destruction. Win8 destroys itself to revert back to the previously installed OS. Network port is permanently disabled.
Blue flavor - Control. Keeps Win8 installed, but presents only a command line interface. Network port is permanently disabled.
Green flavor - Synthesis. Keeps Metro UI as a fancy DOS shell. Network port is permanently disabled.
It sounds as if your company has a poorly run IT department. To lock your self into an OS that has been posted numerous times the support would end for it is down right asinine. Even though your not the only company that has done this, its just poor planning, and poor budgeting on IT's part. You could pay for the extra support, but why? have them invest in competent employees and see the profits rise. As far as windows 8 goes, we have no plans to upgrade to it, however windows 9 is already being discussed as a replacement.
Yeah, what sort of software developer would ever need to look up documentation or consult an email while they were coding?
Did you install Ubuntu?
...one that puts the start button back in place. So far, Ive seen nothing to drag me away from the current version. Windows 8 feels dumbed down- do I really need the metro interface on a desktop? If not give me a start button.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
It's actually quite simple. Microsoft realises how important tablets and touchscreen-only devices are going to be in future - the success of the iPad took everyone by surprise, and smartphones are just too lucrative by sheer numbers to pass up. But the traditional windows interface was made for keyboard and mouse. It's great at keyboard and mouse, but just try pressing a minimise button with your big fat finger. Microsoft was left with two options: Either go with very different interfaces on their desktop and touchscreen lines (Which in turn poses problems for application porting, and would doubtless be opposed by Marketing for making it difficult to maintain a consistant user experience and brand identity), or modify the desktop interface to reflect the needs of the touchscreen user, even if that means making things a little less optimal for the keyboard-and-mouse users. Microsoft chose the latter. Metro tries to be an interface for traditional or touchscreen use, and by trying to be both it manages to excel at neither - but the alternative option could have been even worse from a business perspective, by making it impossible to use Microsoft's established strength in the desktop sector to launch it into the tablet and smartphone where competitors already dominate.
Let's be honest though, the Start Menu isn't all that great either. It's basically everything jammed into a single menu, often haphazardly. Sometimes you have to right-click on things to get what you want (right-click on my computer) or change settings to even get things to appear there at all. The fact that the start-menu is so messy that it needs a search is just face-palm bad. I have adapted to the start menu, and I use it to do what I want, but it is definitely a learned concept, and not something natural and good.
My point is that even though Metro may indeed be bad, people will get used to it and someday may start saying how much better it is than whatever comes next.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
there's no reason to have multiple windows up, since they'll just distract you from what you're doing
Not necessarily. If you have a big monitor, and you have your email up along with another app, it could prevent distraction if you can just glance over to see what your new message is. Same with IM windows, etc. Personally, I focus on one window at a time because my eyes are sensitive and I have a relatively small monitor. I'm just saying that a desktop OS shouldn't make that decision for you. A mobile OS, yes.
MS Office and Windows are monopolies.
Just because alternatives exist, doesn't mean they are not monopolies.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
I actually like the window management on Gnome 3. I miss the compiz grid feature, but gnome 3 is the first window manager that I actually use the "virtual desktop" feature...I use two monitors, and Gnome 3 only does the virtual desktop thing on one of them. that leaves the other for e-mail and IM windows that i want to keep visible all the time.
I've used unity and metro (in the consumer preview), and found them lacking. I think we've reached a point where we have so much choice, It doesn't really bother me that the Desktop paradigm is being experimented upon.
but you'll focus better without them.
Glad that MS knows exactly how I'll focus, and what will make me focus better. Looking forward to coding on my giant monitor with no distractions from documentation, other code snippets, test windows and the other tools that I use on a day to day basis.
In fact, I'm shocked. Shocked! That I've ever been able to get any work done during my entire career, what with all those other windows cluttering up my workspace.
Check your premises.
These are the users you need to persuade if you ever want linux to become popular. These users are the majority, They just want their computer to work, like a toaster. They don't care about how the innards work nor do they want to learn about it. ...and these users will NEVER install their own operating system, they will be stuck with whatever was delivered with the computer no matter how much it frustrates them.
Metro is about MS making a homogenous look and feel across all possible platforms, and thus, having to go to the least common denominator (cell phone interfaces) for all of them.
It's about attempting to leverage their PC market share to make a push into the tablet and cell markets.
Once you realize this, the rest follows naturally.
Check your premises.
You are so behind the curve in Windows. In Linux, we have been pissing off power users trying to turn their desktop into a phone for a long time now! Catch up, Micro$oft!
You mean you don't have all the APIs tattooed on your arm? I call that a lack of commitment. ;P
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The fact that the start-menu is so messy that it needs a search is just face-palm bad.
I found the search feature to be the best thing added to the start menu since it was added to Windows. It actually made the damn thing usable again. I don't even bother navigating the menus now, I just type in the name of whatever I want and there it is (well not even the full name, usually a few letters is plenty). The really unfortunate part is it took so long to add this feature, because it would have made it functional from day 1. Even back in Win95 the start menu became cluttered (but at least in 95 it was an alphabetized clutter by default).
Fear is the mind killer.
I understand you logic, but a lot of us is pissed off at developers that want to turn our multi-thousand dollar dual monitor setup into a phone. Hence why you see so much buzz over a fork of the old system, like Mate. You think it was hard to get folks off XP before? Wait till this comes out!
Here's the fundamental problem.
The start menu may be flawed in some ways, but it is the evolution of years of interface feedback.
Metro is not an evolutionary jump. It is Microsoft, for what I perceive as more marketing and business reasons than usability reasons, attempting to force a misguided UI on PC users. I'd note that the Win 8 interface is probably great for tablets and cell phones; however, for the very reasons that it is, it is awful for a PC.
And it's way more than the start menu. It's the distance one has to move the mouse (to "invisible icons" in the corners). It's the mandatory whole screen paradigm. It's the AOL look and feel. It's the snapping smart corners that are great on a touch screen - but not so much with a mouse. It's the assumption that people want their desktop screen to be touch - and deal with everything from greasy fingerprints to bad posture to having to have their monitor within arms reach to issues of how to deal with a 40 or even 50 inch monitor.
As noted previously, as far as I can tell, Metro is a business driven attempt to leverage their PC market in order to further their tablet and cell phone interests by making a homogeneous platform for all. This makes the interface known on all to anyone who uses one, while encouraging software development across all. However, by making the only tool they provide, it does make is pretty hard to drive screws.
Check your premises.
My point is that even though Metro may indeed be bad, people will get used to it and someday may start saying how much better it is than whatever comes next.
Funny kind of progress...
If you never use the metro apps, the goofy start screen just acts like a giant start menu, even with incremental search
Yes, but with the huge disadvantage that it's annoying to access. Instead of being a button on the screen, it's a full screen waste of space. Accessing it with a mouse is generally unreliable in my experience-- you have to hover your cursor near the edge of the screen, and it often doesn't actually pop up when you do that.
I just assumed 10" refered to the size of the buttons.
I'll say this: if it weren't for Metro I would unquestionably recommend Windows 8 as an upgrade to Windows 7 and especially Vista/XP. The UI's generally clean, they've updated many of the things that needed updating (like the task manager or the file transfer dialog) and boot times are improved.
However, the forced inclusion of Metro through their "start screen" idea is flawed at best, a deal-breaker at worst. No, it's not utterly unusable, as some people might say, but it is a lot less convenient than the start menu. It's a needless downgrade from something which took less space, less mouse movement, fewer clicks and especially which fit with the aesthetic of the rest of the OS better. As it is there's a fairly jarring jump between the appearance of the desktop and the Metro tiles, making it feel like you're running two different OS. If the start screen let me use Windows programs more efficiently, it would've been good (and it's entirely possible to make it do so, Microsoft just didn't do it). As it is, programs take way too much space for no reason, getting access to things takes too many clicks, many traditional features are locked behind a "pretty" UI and it generally feels a bit schizophrenic.
However, my biggest gripe isn't actually the start screen, it's the "Charms". Whereas the bottom-left corner opens up the start screen, the right border opens up the charms panel, which has things like wifi strength and such; that much is good. However, in order to do the extremely unusual action of shutting down or hibernating the computer, you have to go into Settings, then Shutdown, all of which AFTER having opened the Charms menu. How's that for intuitive?
Make the start screen more efficient and put a prominent power button in there and I'll be a lot warmer to the OS. As it is Windows 7 still does the job well enough to stop me from moving on. Oh and, the fact they've shoved Metro in Windows Server 8 (even with the "desktop experience" pack disabled) is utterly insane.
The idea is basically that if you want to use something like your browser, email, an IDE, etc., there's no reason to have multiple windows up, since they'll just distract you from what you're doing.
But if we take our Ritalin it shouldn't be too bad. Seriously, I've never once heard a complaint about someone being distracted because they had more than one window open. Indeed, if a person has problems with multiple application windows, I can't imagine their travails with a browser and all those links and tabs and stuff.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I have no issues with radical UI changes. I'm one of the few people (it seems) with positive things to say about GNOME 3. But I think GNOME got a lot of things right that Microsoft screwed up in their consumer preview. e.g. in GNOME 3 even if you don't know you can mouse into the top corner, there is a big prominent label marked "Activities" that you can click on instead. It's discoverable in other words. In Metro there is nothing obvious at all to tell you the corner does anything. Even if you discover it does something it still requires a second click to actually activate and there is no reason for this. And if you miss the corner, e.g. by slightly jogging the mouse on that second click you can find yourself launching Internet Explorer because the icon is too close to the corner.
Metro is just replete with annoyances like this that only show up with a mouse or on a large screen. I'm sure MS will fix the worst of them but I wonder how many will remain. Windows 8 is meant to be out this year and I wonder if it's already in feature freeze. If the consumer preview is representative of the final product I think it will royally suck on the desktop. It'll probably be fine on a tablet with fingers and gestures but that's cold comfort to people who don't use a tablet.
I've had a few. Yeah, I was a computer professional at the time, but these were systems I had at home. None of them ran Windows, sure, but they could have.
Power users like their computers powerful. I bought the first Tyan dual-proc board for the Athlon MP for my home desktop (which I ran until I replaced it with a dual-core Phenom system years later). Prior to that, I had a couple dual Pentium Pro systems and a dual Pentium II box. I've had a fair share of old Sun equipment with multiple processors as well. This is all home stuff, mind you - I'm not counting equipment I used for business purposes.
I seriously considered an 8-proc Supermicro motherboard when the capacitors died on my Tyan board. I opted out because I couldn't justify the cost of more than a quad-processor system, and multicore processors were making the whole thing pointless anyway.
These days, I just use a laptop and a few servers at home I tinker with. If I were still in my 20s, and had the money, I'd probably be typing this on that 8-socket Supermicro right now.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
When have you ever heard a linux proponent say they want it to become popular? I think the most I'd ever hope for would be that those who want to use it find it useful. That sort of goes against the whole 'computing appliance' idea; that trend is actively harmful to general purpose computing. Also, 'freedom to choose; includes the choice to use a buggy, virus-laden OS, and good riddance to that entire category of user, in my opinion. Increased corporate sponsorship is one thing, but the only thing that Joe Average does is complain about how things should work.
Linux users: post if you actually want linux to see widespread adoption in the home market. Also note whether you think that this could happen without linux becoming a walled garden.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Make the start screen more efficient
You might be interested in this blog post, which tries to address concerns that the new start screen is less efficient. For example, you complain about things being further away and larger, but according to Fitts law, this exact combination maintains the efficiency of the menu, and if fact the math works out so that it's more efficient for a higher number of items. Further, the shape and grouping capability of the new start screen, which is only possible because it's a screen instead of a menu, make it possible to take advantage of different types of memory recall like spatial memory. After using the new start screen for a while, I find it much more useful than the start menu.
That's just BS designers like to spill all the time. Most PC users *will* have more than one thing visible:
An IRC or IM on one side, where I can glance at what being written/etc.
Some filecopy/transfer or alike on another side.
Some download in progress, or something alike.
Documentation relevant to what I'm doing
Music player?
The *main* window.
The idea is basically that if you want to use something like your browser, email, an IDE, etc., there's no reason to have multiple windows up, since they'll just distract you from what you're doing.
Multiple windows aren't a distraction for me, they are a requirement. My normal working environment is a large terminal window to develop my code in, another terminal for actually running the code, a third terminal is usually open to examine logs related to testing the code. If I'm working on something web-based I'll also have a browser for testing the code. I need documentation open, which is usually in the form of several browser tabs and maybe an email or 2 open in Thunderbird tabs.
These windows are all related to a single project - the only alternative to having them all on screen at once would be to keep switching between them, whcih would be very distracting and counterproductive (I do have to do this when working on small-screen devices such as my 15.4" laptop, and I find it hard work).
Windows 7 and GNOME 3 (and possible others) have quick gestures for putting two windows on half of the screen each, but the idea is that generally you don't need more than that (although it would be nice if they had a way to handle it), and most things can just be left in a random place in the background (IMs, email, whatever you're not doing at this moment).
I use and like Gnome 3. But I place windows manually and wouldn't want it any other way. My browser is left maximised on my secondary (only 15") monitor, but nothing else ever gets maximised. The only time I've used the "half screen" maximisation feature is when comparing 2 network dumps in 2 separate Wireshark instances - it's handy for this, but I use it so rarely that I really wouldn't miss it.
I've come to the conclusion that having a desktop environment that supports a multitude of devices (from tiny-screen phones all the way up to massive-screen desktops, etc) is a Good Thing, but we have to stop forcing the paradigms of one type of device on another. On my phone, I want my browser maximised pretty much all the time because the screen is small, but on a desktop with a 24" screen I almost never want this. But I don't think there is a hard rule about whether to maximise or window applications: small screen sizes will tend to want most things maximised, big screen sizes will tend to want most things windows, but in all cases there are exceptions. In the middle, there are things like 10" tablets where you're often going to want things maximised, but there are considerable numbers of cases where you don't. For example, I often wouldn't want my instant messager maximised on a tablet (but sometimes I would), whilst I would usually want my browser maximised (but sometimes I wouldn't).
Since it seems to be very fuzzy whether to maximise or window things, I'm not sure what the best approach is for picking defaults. On the one hand, it sounds nice to try and heuristically figure out the probability that the user will want a certain application maximised on a certain sized screen, and therefore either maximise it or window it by default depending on what the calculated probabilities suggest (and give the user the ability to override this, possibly feeding back the user's override decision into the heuristic so it learns). However, on the other hand, this seems to violate the principle of least surprise - I usually like my computer to do predictable things in response to my mouse clicks, which such a system inherently prevents.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Why exactly does a desktop have to look the same as a smartphone? Explain why my 27 inch screen has to have the same look as my teeny smartphone screen? I paid good money for the pixels, and I am going to use them
Making a common OS between tablets, smartphones and PC's that has the interface best suited for the device, rather than use the lowest common denominator be the design standard? Windows is already the champion of many many versions.
It's about attempting to leverage their PC market share to make a push into the tablet and cell markets.
It's about attempting to leverage their PC market share to make a push into the tablet and cell markets.
Well, that is likely true. But perhaps a bit premature. The interface turns a lot of people off, and Microsoft's push into the tablet and cell markets hasn't exactly been a success, so I fear that they might be really messing things up. My misadventure with W8 Consumer preview, only confirmed my lack of future with Windows OS products. I was hoping for an improvement on W7, which is a useable system. Instead, I saw a steaming hot mess.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Yeah, evolution... http://i.imgur.com/avgcv.jpg
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
Microsoft is finally warming up to the the Linux Kernel release version branch split system in terms of purpose and usability.
Windows XP = Stable
Windows Vista = Development/Experimental
Windows 7 = Stable
Windows 8 = Development/Experimental
Except that you don't get a choice if you need to run Windows apps on an up-to-date OS.
So complain to Microsoft, or get a better OS. If I like hardwood floors and you like carpet, why complain to me because your installer only knows how to install hardwood floors when you could just find a new installer?
And if you want a lack of distraction in any OS, all you have to do is close your unnecessary windows.
Yes, I'm doing it wrong. I'm so stupid. How dare I like a window manager that does something for me?
There are things in life that shouldn't require tradeoffs.
Good luck with that.
Congratulations on discovering that not everyone works the same way. Why was this voted up?
Maybe because Windows' and Gnome 3's insistence on "one window to rule them all" shows that they haven't made this same discovery?
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I found the search feature to be the best thing added to the start menu since it was added to Windows. It actually made the damn thing usable again. I don't even bother navigating the menus now, I just type in the name of whatever I want
So, uh, kinda like opening a bash prompt then?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Pointless, expensive, expensive and pointless.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I seem to remember reading that the "greasy finger interface", as you call it, is analogous to the Start menu of Windows 4 through 7. This article claims that one can toggle between it and the desktop by pressing the Windows key, just as one can toggle the Start menu on and off with the Windows key.
Honestly I never even use the start menu anymore. All the programs I ever use are pinned on the start bar. I guess the only time I actually open the start menu is to search. This is in line with what MS found through usage statistics gathered from thousands of users; that people just aren't using the start menu anymore. So I have to wonder how many people this change actually affects, and I also imagine the impact is blown out of proportion on sites like slashdot where people A) don't even use windows and B) have some sort of axe to grind against Microsoft.
Having a couple of choices would be beneficial, rather than having users possibly forgo the upgrade to migrate to another system because they dislike the UI. Especially when the UI is the thing that most users interact with most. Especially if there are no other official "editions" or window managers available.
You don't have to get extreme with options, but clearly some people are going to want to see more things on-screen simultaneously than others. Oh well, guess we will have to see how that plays out.
Except - how many people in a work environment have their data reported? Most competent IT departments don't allow such feedback to be sent.
Which means that the samples were comprised mostly of home users, which are a very different set than the productive business users and developers.
And in fact, most knowledgeable home users would disable the feedback as well as a matter of course.
But - nothing I'm going to say here is going to change Windows 8 at this point. MS has chosen a course, and has committed to it. I'll ride it out, and hope that the following Windows learns. It would follow the pattern of good-bad-good-bad-good-bad that seems to be the norm.
Check your premises.
Except - how many people in a work environment have their data reported?
Microsoft addressed this exact question in this post, reposted below:
@Andrew wrote: "I'd like to point out that this data you collect is most likely from non-corporate users, you're basing all your statistics around home users and not business users. Most enterprises will turn off the CEIP by default in Group Policy as a security precaution and to prevent chatter from the network."
Andrew, while it’s true that some enterprises choose not to enable the CEIP (Customer Experience Improvement Program, which gives us anonymous, opt-in feedback about how people are using Windows,) we still receive a huge amount of data from this program, including from enterprise customers. In addition, knowing the region, language, edition, and deployment attributes of the product allows us to further refine the data as needed. We often refer to this data as a full "census" (again noting that the data is opt-in and anonymous) as the number of unique data points is magnitudes beyond a "sampling."
In addition to the CEIP program, we have a wide variety of channels to our corporate customers to understand their needs. For example, we collect feedback continuously during direct engagement with customers (such as during on-site visits and in our briefing centers around the world), from advisory council and early-adopter program members, and at public events such as TechEd and //build/. We also work closely with industry analysts (via consultations and their research) and execute a wide range of our own research studies directly. From these interactions, we know the kind of functionality and control that enterprises want over the Start menu and we are definitely taking these into account as we are designing and developing the changes for Windows 8.
When you look at the data, we can see that enterprise customers do, in fact, have some different experiences with their Start menus:
While 81% of home users have the default links like Control Panel, Games, and Documents on right hand-side of the Start menu , fewer than 2% of our enterprise customers have this experience.
Most people have removed some items in this part of the Start menu (with Games and Media Center entry points most often removed).
Enterprise users are launching pinned Start menu apps 68% more often than home users, but the usage of pinned items is still less than 10% of the sessions.
What are we doing with this information?
In general, individual enterprise customers are using Start menus that their administrators have customized. Using this research and our engagement with the enterprise community, we are working on special features that can help address the need for customization in the Start screen. For example, enterprises can remove items like Games and Help & Support from the Start screen. For Windows 8, we support deployment scenarios that include Start screens with a layout of tiles that matches their business group’s needs, allowing for an even greater number of pinned apps to be pre-defined for their users. We also support the managed lockdown of customization of the Start screen so that it is consistent across the corporation. These features have been built especially for our enterprise customers, taking into account the existing functionality that we have provided in the past and the needs that we perceive they will have in the future. And as many know, tech-savvy individuals can use these customizations as well.
Maybe you're right. The sales figures will tell in the end, neh? Remember, though, no amount of spin can make a long term impact on what people think about what they consider their tools. Their toys, entertainment, politics, fashion sense, what they think is beautiful - yep. But their tools - no, people know what works.
Personally, I'll keep myself on Win7 as long as possible, and hope that Win9 goes back up to the high standard that Win7 presented.
Check your premises.
Good for **YOU**
Me and many other people, according to Microsoft usage statistics. Usage in the start menu has dropped tremendously since the introduction of the start bar. What exactly do you use the start menu for anyway? At its core it's just a box with shortcuts on it. Fast desktop-wide searching has removed my need to ever use the "all programs link" and jump lists have removed the need to ever use the documents links. The only other useful function is pinned apps, and they go on my start bar anyway.
The sales figures will tell in the end, neh?
True. The same thing was said about Office when they introduced the Ribbon. The consensus on Slashdot was, and still is, that the ribbon is a productivity nightmare, and no one would upgrade from Office 2003. In fact it was seen as the dawn of new age for Open Office, as Slashdot assured that users would switch in droves when confronted with the new UI. Of course at launch, Office 2007 sold twice as many copies as 2003, and sales continue strongly with Office 2010 selling over 200 million licenses to date. In matters concerning how the general public will receive a product, I tend to bet against Slashot's collective opinion (see also: iPod, iPhone, iPad, Linux).
Ok so here my two cents as an engineer currently building a Windows 8 game. I've been using Windows 8 since DP4. I.e. Developer Preview 4. Currently I'm using DP6, which is the latest build since the Consumer Preview (CP) was released. I have gotten used to the Metro interface and use it as an app search and launchpad. Basically I see the whole Windows 8 thing as basically a faster, cleaner, sparklier Windows 7 with a revised Start Menu. It's clear some optimizations have been under the hood to make the OS load faster, run faster, and in generally be more efficient.
;)
As far as the Metro interface goes, it's fine. I use it with both my touchscreen monitor and mouse and keyboard. It doesn't make my day to day job any easier or harder, it's just different. Also, keep in mind that as a primarily back-end dev, I need to use all of the more advanced features of Windows and so far haven't found my experience to be any worse than Win 7. The only bad thing right now is the massive buggy mess that is Visual Studio 11.
Win 8 is basically Win 7 with bells on. You can pin Non-Metro apps to the start screen and the app/settings search is fast. I use the start screen merely through my keyboard. Hit Windows key, start typing app-name, hit enter. That's it. As far as Metro apps go, I don't really use any except the game I'm working on,,, which rocks..