Slashdot Mirror
First Looks At Windows 8.1, Complete With 'Start' Button
Ars Technica has taken a look at Microsoft's newly released preview of Windows 8.1. As widely rumored, the point release features a clamored-for concession to Windows users who rankled at the loss of Windows' Start button in the taskbar.
In addition to various tweaks to 8's search capabilities and icon presentation, says the article, "Some of Windows 8's obvious limitations are being lifted. In 8.1, Metro apps can be run on multiple monitors simultaneously. On any single monitor, more than two applications can be run simultaneously. Instead of Windows 8's fixed split, where one application gets 320 pixels and the other application gets the rest, the division between apps will be variable. It'll also be possible to have multiple windows from a single app so that, for example, two browser windows can be opened side-by-side."
Similar reports on these changes at Wired, Engadget, and SlashCloud.
What most of us wanted back was the Start menu, not just the Start button. Microsoft still doesn't get it: We don't want to see or interact with Metro, at all. Ever. It has no place on the desktop.
Give users the option to use your terrible Metro interface or have a standard Start menu. What's so hard about that?
sudo make me a sandwich
So, Microsoft brings back the start button but forgets the start menu. Looks like something done just to shut up the complaints, instead of listening to their users and delivering what they really wanted. Of course, they can't be seen backtracking and admitting that TIFKAM is as much of a success in the desktop as it is on smartphones...
To that, we have all the extensive integration with bing and skydrive which could/should be considered another abuse of a monopoly position. Personally, both of the services are worthless to me, but if could replace them with Google, and dropbox/copy/google drive, like I can do in android, then it might be useful. In fact, an Android style approach might get Microsoft out of monopoly abuse...
I can never quite shake the dissonance associated with the fact that the OS called 'Windows' has always had fairly shit window management and now seems hellbent on making it worse(Gosh, why wouldn't a UI designed for 10' or smaller touch-tablets be a bad idea on a dual-head desktop? I sure can't think of any reasons...)
Except that this new "Start" menu takes you into the Metro start screen.
Staying out of Metro would be a lot easier if Microsoft gave us back the ACTUAL start menu.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Why bother upgrading?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
third option : move to a better/faster/more secure OS : OSX or Linux.
I find it incredible that a self-confessed geek is having an issue with people pointing at Microsoft's HUGE mistake.
Why is it so hard for them to NOT FORCE US into their Metro crap ?
Avoid the MS tax, always buy I.B.M. PC's (I Built-it Myself)
It's like 1991 all over again. Do I have to install Trumpet WinSOCK to connect to my ISP?
Seriously, it feels like Microsoft has forgotten why they called the damn OS 'Windows' in the first place.
At work, we just finally upgraded to Windows 7 a few months ago. Microsoft still has plenty of time to fix more things before IT even considers Win8.
- Necron69
Really? You find it incredible that self-confessed geeks would have a problem with being forced by a Microsoft design decision into losing what some people seem to consider to be fairly core usability functionality, which has existed harmoniously for over 15 years?
It's beside the point that OSS solutions exist - it's the principal of the matter. What's so hard to understand that people might not like having changes like this forced upon them? Some people may prefer not having to using third party code to restore this functionality, while others may not be able to apply OSS options because they lack the ability to update their standard operating environment (e.g. corporations, government workstations etc).
One of the major points of difference between Microsoft operating systems and others is that in most cases power users have the ability to heavily customize the Windows operating system (and other Microsoft products) without necessarily having to resort to third party code. What's so difficult to understand about that?
Because if users aren't forced to use Metro, then developers won't have to develop Metro apps, and then Microsoft won't have many apps available for download to their unpopular Windows Phone. Microsoft is trying to use its desktop OS monopoly to muscle into the relatively new phone market.
THIS.
Metro should have been put inside of Explorer, as an optional component, not the other way around. Alternatively, detect if there's a mouse or touchscreen present - and if there's a touchscreen, launch Metro, and if there's a mouse, launch Explorer.
Here's the thing.
Metro UI sucks just as much as the window system Ubuntu and many other linux distributions have 'glommed' onto. It's all Mac like and I personally don't like it.
I preferred the windows 7 design. Oh and the whole "it's (win8) smaller and faster" is crap! I finally got windows 7 installed on my hp 2000 notebook and that was tough because hp didn't want me to do it, but they finally "allowed my downgrade". Now my notebook is fast and awesome!
I like my windowed layout. I have my applications laid out a certain way when coding and I hate the way Metro UI fights you at every step of the way to do this. They want to force you to have one app visible at a time. They started this on Linux with Gnome3, which is why it sucks so much. I can't stand the layout there either.
The only way I even remotely get what I want (in the linux realm) is to use CentOS. Not even fedora is good anymore.
I don't know who came up with it or why but it sucks.
The problem is that this is obviously not working. At all. And as that strategy unravels, they have to start handling the fallout from throwing their desktop OS under the bus to save the phone one.
Hence, these moves. They want to see how much of a lifeline from desktop to metro they can keep going before people start rejecting their metro on desktop.
Anyone remember that phone? That's the one where Blackberry (RIM) decided to get in on the touchscreen craze by building a phone that tried to bridge the gap for users who preferred physical keyboards. In response to physical keyboard users who clamored for tactile feedback, they made the whole screen click when you pressed hard enough.
At the time, I thought to myself, "no, you idiots, an entire screen that clicks doesn't provide the same tactile feedback as individually raised keys that click under your fingers. What were you guys thinking when you came up with this partial solution to the wrong problem?"
This time around, I'm thinking to myself (and the Slashdot community), "no, you idiots, adding a start icon to the desktop so that users can get to Metro doesn't address the underlying problem that Metro is not appropriate on non-touchscreen desktop PCs. What were you guys thinking when you came up with this partial solution to the wrong problem?"
Changing things for the sake of change is not good. I see you are still speaking English? Why don't you start using that "new" Esperanto instead? If you don't, then you are doing things the oooooooolllllld way.
The Windows 95/NT 4 user interface, was - unlike Windows 8's - well researched, very solid, and very usable. Most of its "flaws" came from application developers not using it right (such as cluttered Windows 3.1 style program groups in the Start menu)
frankly if you're stuck at "this isn't working as I want it to" then you should hand your geek-badge in because really....this isn't difficult.
Frankly, if you can't grab the concept of "I need to make it work the way I want, and not how MS marketing dep wants it to work", I guess you don't have a geek-badge to hand-off.
I've used EVERY windows version since version 1, and Win8 is the first version ever that I can't stand.
I've now moved to Linux with KDE, where I can actually make it work the way I want. And believe it or not, I can actually have more than one window open at the same time !
So keep using your toy OS and I will keep using mine that actually tries really hard to not be in my way while I work.
Avoid the MS tax, always buy I.B.M. PC's (I Built-it Myself)
And this is why Windows will never catch up. And why eventually it will fade away as our generation grows old and leaves the workforce.
How can Microsoft innovate if what "most of us" want is the same old thing? It feels a bit like the educators who were fighting computers in the classroom in the 1980s and insisted that students only learn on manual typewriters.
Its not about what your used to it is about what behavior is sane and what is insane. It is about making determinations based on MERIT.
I suspect you'll find covering the entire workspace just to launch an application or find a document just as nonsensical in the stoneage as it is in the spaceage. I don't much care what that interface *looks* like but it has to be sane and not obleterate all onscreen context in the process.
Simply making the classic change adverse argument is an exercise in making non-falsifiable statements. If the next version of windows is an abacus and I replayed your "change adverse" statement would it be any different? What it convey and more or less information? Without merit without discussing actual tradeoffs what information is being conveyed?
assure you that Microsoft spend millions of dollars on various iterations and on studies for usability testing. But that so many people rejected it even though if it can be scientifically proven to be better (through a repeatable study, that's how science works),
The real issue seems to me to be for years there are a lot of people who own computers only to check email and facebook and now they have more options that are a better fit for what they actually do...good for them...but these people while a huge group are not the entire constellation of those using computers. There are people who still need a sane UI environment to get shit done complete with programs encased in movable frames...goddamn I feel like such a dinosaur saying that.
I also disagree that this is about "science"... it was more about leveraging windows to help windows phone to improve market share in other areas. There is no technical reason they couldn't provide knobs to make everyone happy. They chose not to for political reasons as evidenced by shit they took away during early betas of W8.
Metro is about locking down the computing environment (You can't install a metro app yourself...you can only install a metro app from the MS mothership...oh I'm sorry that is such a dated term...I mean the future of all computing..."the cloud"...
Fads come and go ... this isn't an improvement or a reflection of "the future" or a better way... it is a POS forced upon the world for political reasons to make MS more money. A boiling frog on the road to the promised land of vendor locked down computation...our future...where a few control basically everything...like apple does with the iphone and google with everything else...
MS is finally realizing they left way too much value on the table in previous versions of windows and is now hard at work fixing that.
Why is it so hard for them to NOT FORCE US into their Metro crap ?
I think Microsoft really bet the farm on the Surface. With tablets outselling PCs, they think it's the future. This crap is part of the gamble.
See, they had been advocating the "tablet PC" since the XP days, with no success. Suddenly the iPad was huge, and they think: "We were right all along, people want tablets. We just have to push for ours harder." Well, fine. But their idea is that putting the same interface everywhere will get people to go for whatever system with which they are familiar. Gee, then why was no one interested when they did those awful tablets with XP?
The system itself was the problem, twice: as they just put a full desktop OS on a portable, not a slim one like Palm or Newton, the hardware had to be a full notebook PC with some touch junk tacked on. So it was expensive, heavy, and ran hot. Now, the Surface remains expensive, but it is light and runs cool enough, right? But the other problem was the fact that XP's interface was not adequate for tablets. So this time they are smart enough create this new interface, purportedly good for tablets. Meaning it is no longer adequate for the desktop. And they put it there anyway. Same mistake, only backwards.
And how did that familiarity thing work? Well, they changed everything, so nobody was familiar with Windows 8 anyway!
Apple knew better: different devices need different interfaces.
Circumcision is child abuse.
The problem with Windows these days is that everything they change about has an immediately obvious reason as to why the change will benefit Microsoft (or at least they hope it will) and often has little or no benefit to the customer. Metro? It serves no purpose other than to try to create a market of apps from which MS can skim 30% off the top like Apple. Metro also allows MS to do less work because it can be used across different platforms, despite only being (ostensibly) appropriate for a small fraction of them. Microsoft has always tried to work towards the goal of one gargantuan monolithic OS that runs on all hardware, despite the fact that that has never been a good design strategy and probably never will be. Apple never fell into this trap and Linux succeeds by being a rock-solid incredibly flexible _kernel_ but not foisting a massive and bloated application layer on everything from a phone to a supercomputer. I can appreciate that Microsoft wants to maintain their revenue while having to do as little work as possible, but that seems to be the only thing criterion driving any of their designs any more. The business of propping up the monopoly they created in the 80s and early 90s is running out of steam. Some day, they might realize it.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.