Slashdot Mirror


A Serious Proposal To Fix Windows 8

GMGruman writes "Windows 8 is simply not selling, and everyone but Microsoft knows it's a mess of an OS. And the Windows 8.1 'Blue' that Microsoft revealed some details of late last week doesn't address the fundamental flaws. So a team at InfoWorld worked up a serious proposal to rework Windows 8 for both PCs and tablets that fixes those flaws and lets Microsoft's true innovations break free of today's Windows 8, complete with mockups of the proposed Windows 'Red.'"

38 of 578 comments (clear)

  1. Nice objective summary by dywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nice objective summary

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    1. Re:Nice objective summary by LateArthurDent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nice objective summary

      Actually, it is.

      Windows 8 on the desktop is broken. This isn't a subjective tastes issue. It is objectively horrible.

      Unless you can explain why someone in a desktop would actually *want* to be subject to tablet limitations like full screen apps, or having to dock apps at specific locations in your screen if you want to work with more than one at a time. I can see why it would be beneficial to be able to run the tablet apps, but if you have a mouse and keyboard, by default they should be placed inside a desktop window that you can do whatever with. Instead, we're being guided by default to use tablet apps instead of desktop ones, and going to a horrible screen that shows a limited set of what you have installed instead of getting a well-organized menu.

      If you install classic shell, Windows 8 is perfectly usable, but it doesn't really add anything to what was already available with Windows 7.

    2. Re:Nice objective summary by number17 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem people are the same people who couldn't handle the switch from a bank passbook to mailed statements to online banking. A full screen start menu just breaks something in their head. Remote desktop would just kill them.

    3. Re:Nice objective summary by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Windows 8 is not something his lieutenants can just build and put out in the market without the CEO's say-so; it's such a huge thing to the company as a whole it had to have his approval. Plus, part of the impetus for Win8's Metro interface is this crazy idea of having a single UI across all devices, and that's something that spans company divisions, and again, would require CEO approval.

      At the end of the chain, the approval of CEO can be as simple as "yes, looks good, let's push it". But the design and functionality, big building blocks of the new Windows, depend on so many other people too.

    4. Re:Nice objective summary by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Windows 8 on the desktop is broken. This isn't a subjective tastes issue. It is objectively horrible.

      You sound like those fox news commentators insisting that it's a "fact" that Obama is a socialist and "science" that women belong at home with the kids. Simply throwing the words "objective" and "fact" into a sentence doesn't make a statement either. The word you're looking for is "opinion".

      Why would someone want to be subject to limitations like full screen apps? One reason: easier window management. When I'm on an ultrabook I don't have 10 windows open everywhere, there simply isn't enough space. Snapping Skype to one side and IE to the other is superior to me having to juggle arbitrary windows.

      With arbitrary dividing spacing I would rather have dockable windows in defined panes than floating windows most of the time. Almost all of my high end applications have moved to a docked/paned windowing system. The few that haven't like 3ds max are a #()@# nightmare of overlapping dialog windows trying to get to the one I want.

      I love AeroSnap in Windows 7 but I really wish I could define an arbitrary divide point and maintain that point. Instead aero snap means I have to snap and then resize new windows. Which is a hassle with a trackpad or touchscreen.

      Lastly... that's so far only in the Tablet/Laptop side of the OS so I don't know why you're bitching. Regular old school anarchy windowing is still completely in tact (and enhanced) in windows 8. And for Tablet/Laptop apps it's already really nice even if needing a little more polish (see 8.1+ enhancements). I'm hoping that by 8.2 and with the addition maybe of vertical splits in the dock paneling they start offering it as an alternate windowing system for the desktop.

      It's an objective, non-subjective *FACT* that the start screen shows way more icons, and places more icons within a shorter distance of the start button than the start menu. A grid gives you 2 dimensions of applications instead of 1 dimension that means you have an objective (N^2-N) more applications quickly accessible. Microsoft actually changed my mind on this subject with two graphics:
      http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-01-29-43-metablogapi/3730.Page15_2D00_1_5F00_6C5DB0B3.png

      http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-01-29-43-metablogapi/4300.Page15_2D00_2_5F00_7A2FF6AE.png

      Also menus are idiotic. If you're using the start menu like it was designed in 1995 you're objectively slower than someone who just hits the start button and types in the first 3 letters of the application name.

      Start -> All Programs -> Adobe Creative Suite -> Photoshop. (took me 10s)
      vs
      Start Button + "Phot" + Enter. (took me less than 3s and works in Windows 8 and 7 exactly the same.)

      If you click the "All programs button" on the start screen (Just like you have to press the "All programs" button in the start menu, you'll get taken to a full organized list of applications. And with the tweaks in 8.1 it'll be even more usable than the "well organized menu" since you can sort by how frequently you use your apps. You shouldn't be wasting a second of your time curating your start menu.

      And if you really were a power user you wouldn't have frequently used apps in your start menu, you would pin them to the taskbar like you've been able to do for over a decade. The fact that you're trying to use Windows 8 as if it was Windows 95 is your problem not Windows 8.

    5. Re:Nice objective summary by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I find the start menu much more navigable than the start screen in Windows 8. Giant icons in metro is means less stuff up there available, so the first thing most people do is go to "all apps". Then you've got a 2 dimensional grid of smaller stuff. However that is less convenient in many ways; start menu is top to bottom, with vertical scrolling, but start screen is top to bottom and left to right with horizontal scrolling which is very disconcerting.

      Also by default start menu keeps things in sub-folders. Thus my newly installed game will have a folder all to itself, including the game, readme, and miscellaneous files. This keeps the menu list shorter, compared to the "all apps" on the start screen where everything is expanded by default so I'm scrolling (sideways) through many more elements than the start menu had.

      Also consider the awful icons you get in metro. A flat square with a smaller icon in the center of it, many of the icons which look exactly the same as others (ie, all document files are identical). So you are reading the text only here, the icons get ignored. This leaves a huge amount of space between each name in the start screen, which means you can't visually scan as easily through the squares list looking for the name you want. Start menu is compact; start screen is spread out with wasted spaced.

      When I use start menu it is for a couple reasons essentially: to find things that are seldom used or hard to find, or to find things that are used often but which can't have on-screen icons. For the former, the start screen does not speed up the searching and actually slows things down. For the latter, metro makes it difficult to find control panel or shutdown (without using undocumented shortcuts that the average user will not know).

      I don't use start menu in windows 8 because I don't have a replacement, so on occasion I do use start screen. I always find it very clumsy. I also find myself pinning more stuff to task bar than I used to, with more icons on the desktop than I used to. I hate that, I want a relatively clean desktop.

  2. No problem here by flnhst · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have now worked with Windows 8 now since last october, and it is working just fine for me. I have had no problem getting around the new interface.

    1. Re:No problem here by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1, Insightful
      My only gripe with W8 is the Metro interface is flat you can't have a tile for one application and then have all the tiles for it's other components underneath. Other than that it goes like stink. I believe the low sales have more to do with desktop/laptop sales plummeting.

      Go on troll away see if I care

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    2. Re:No problem here by LordThyGod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have now worked with Windows 8 now since last october, and it is working just fine for me. I have had no problem getting around the new interface.

      You must be the target audience then. The rest of the planet, or most of us anyway, are not.

  3. Windows Red looks horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The suggestions involved are klunky and the idea of splitting it into 3 OSes is going the wrong way. Windows RT is a disaster because it lacks app compatibility. MS needs to retire it and fully embrace x86 now that intel has fixed it with Haswell.

    All that needs to be done to "fix" the start menu issue is make it so the task bar never goes away and the desktop background stays persistent but faded out. You click "START" and tada, the tiles appear right on top of your desktop. It is a simple solution, should be easy to present and works equally as well in mobile touchscreens as it does mice.

    1. Re: Windows Red looks horrible by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with Windows RT was naming it Windows.

      Had they just called it RT, or Surface or Metro or something other than Windows, the app compatibility wouldn't be a problem. OSX application support or, out of the box anyway, X or Gtk support didn't harm Android or iOS. The whole thing supports the same CLR as Windows so...

      I think what's really hurting them is the insular nature of Microsoft. Spreadsheets aren't cool. Using Power Point in ads is more likely to turn off a user than turn one on.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    2. Re:Windows Red looks horrible by Junta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The issue is that WinRT has to offer *something* that IOS and Android do not in order to gain share.

      They didn't pursue lower price, their offerings are no less expensive than Apple.

      The didn't pursue better specs. They focused on Tegra 3, which is respectable but dated. Their screen resolution is downright atrocious compared to comparably priced products. While Android and IOS both have high ppi displays, MS has been left behind on this front.

      They don't have more apps. Android and IOS had to build their ecosystems from scratch, but they had early mover advantage. After letting that situation simmer for years, they release a product with a paltry number of apps despite having a legacy of the most application compatibilty of any platform. They don't even have app compatibility between their phone and winrt as it stands (though that wouldn't have helped *much*, it still is a sign that they made a mistake compared with the strategies of Apple and Android).

      Basically, every possible advantage that MS could have brought to market, they failed to do so. Like it or not, their best hope was/is to focus on x86 solutions where their application compatibilty can really come into its own.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  4. Or simply install Linux by mauriceh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please people, the "elephant in the room" is right in front of your face.

    --
    Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
    1. Re:Or simply install Linux by Merk42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So in order to solve the issue of a completely different UI, you suggest installing Linux that has a completely different UI (and app incompatibility)?

    2. Re:Or simply install Linux by kimvette · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > You know what? Linux on the Desktop is a complete and utter failure, even after all this time. It's utterly unusable.

      So you installed the most antiquated UI and call it a failure. I don't believe you run Linux, I believe you're just trolling. If you were serious about desktop usability you'd have installed Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Mint, OpenSUSE, or Fedora - or considering you've been running Linux for 20 years (some of us actually HAVE been running Linux for 20 years but based on your post it is obvious you have not) you would simply have installed a more intuitive and capable desktop.

      Linux is not a failure on the desktop - it is superior to both Windows and OS X in many ways. What it lacks is consistency between environments, and commercial app availability (there is still no true Photoshop, Lightroom, AutoCAD, etc. replacement on Linux unless you want to spend a whole lot of hours fucking around with WINE). Gaming isn't much of an issue any more as more and more games and gaming platforms get ported to Linux.

      Seamless integration with networks is VASTLY superior in Linux than Windows, especially under KDE where you can fish:/ or smb:/ to a share directly in konqueror or dolphin, and interact with those ad-hoc mounts as if they were local folders and files. This makes it very corporate-friendly, if it weren't for all of the entrenched apps that are not available on Linux.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  5. Bad OS or bad GUI? by gatkinso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it is simply a shitty GUI on an improved kernel and stack then I will deal with it.

    What little Windows development I do is at least 50% command line anyway. My GUI apps simply are wrappers (and quite ugly thank you).

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  6. A simple question I have wanted to ask: by fredrated · · Score: 4, Insightful

    how is it 10,000 Microsoft engineers and managers couldn't pour piss out of a boot if instructions were on the heal?

    1. Re:A simple question I have wanted to ask: by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because of the vision of the manager at the top of the pyramid

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  7. Is MS *trying* to commit suicide? by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Between Windows 8 and trying to turn the Xbox into some sort of kludgy, half-assed DRM'ed TV tuner instead of a game console, I sometimes wonder wtf is going on in Redmond. Has Steve Balmer just checked out to lunch or something?

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  8. Re:My solution for fixing Windows 8 by Known+Nutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You left out one option: Windows 7.

    --
    Beware of the Leopard.
  9. Re:My solution for fixing Windows 8 by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and replace it with what?

    DOS 6.22 of course, with Windows 3.11 for workgroups. I suggest also installing Trumpet Winsock in order to be able dial in to what is known as "the internet. Obviously you'll need to buy a modem for that.

    the growth of OSX showed that the usual linux trope about there being no possibility for a competing desktop OS to succeed was bollocks

    You do realise that (a) MacOS is very old and already had a very well established software base, and (b) Microsoft Office which is at about the 99.9% monopoly level has supported MacOS (X and pre-X) too?

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  10. Re:Uh oh. My common sense is tingling! by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Microsoft should hire Infoword's writers as design consultants. Inforworld's staff doesn't have the luxury of being out of touch with users."

    Judging by the fact that what was really just a simple article when it comes too was presented as some kind of faux-slideshow that randomly went white in the middle with a link return to slideshow (I assume my ad blocker half-killed a popup ad) I'd say they're perfectly well out of touch with users too.

  11. Microsoft ads motion background. Still doesn't get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In "good design", motion is supposed to direct your eye to important interface elements.

    Panes or "Tetris Elements" or whatever they fucking call the distracting moving, flipping visual mess in Metro has been designed solely for distraction. Every task in Windows 8 takes longer amongst the worthless visual clutter begging for your attention. Why is this box jumping and drawing my eye? I don't know, it's not showing me anything new, and meanwhile I need to flip through another six pages of Tetris to find my bloody app.

  12. Common Sense.... by houbou · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From Win 7 to Win 8, the differences are simply too huge.
    We've been using a desktop PC for about 20 yrs and basically, the core Win OS hasn't changed all that much. Start Button, Control Panel, etc..
    I believe that as long as you have PCs operating with keyboard/mouse that you should be able to have the Win 7 experience. And then again, if possible, the Windows Classic experience without all the frills and thrills.
    Well, that's my opinion anyways. It would make sense and it wouldn't be rattling user's cages so to speak.
    Microsoft wants to get into the mobile world with their OS. Great, no problem, bring it on, but, maybe, they ought to make it a separate OS. It's going to be a while before a 'one solution' fits all approach will work when it comes to computing. For once, Microsoft should look at how Apple does it. It might LOOK all the same, but it isn't.

  13. Re:My solution for fixing Windows 8 by Lorizean · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The main reason why Linux on the desktop hasn't been very succesful is largely a marketing problem in my opinion. Specifically, there is basically nobody who properly markets Linux, so a lot of people have never heard of it and even those that have largely think it's a command-line only hardcore-geek thing. Linux needs an image change and it is slowly happening - look at steam etc. I would also be very interested in your reasoning as to why GNU/Linux isn't very good.

  14. Doing it wrong. by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Linux. BSD. Haiku. ALMOST ANY OTHER OS. you're damn proposal to make thing the way you like can actually be acted upon.

    The best way to "fix" windows, is to say "fuck it" and not use the shit.

  15. Not great editing oversite on that article. by OvidNaso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It links you in the third paragraph to "20 things you will love about Windows 8." Number 9 is the "Charms bar." On page 3 they suggest "The Charms bar is eliminated".

  16. Re:No, it's not. by Toonol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lots of people, obviously. Probably millions. Why'd you ask this question about a statement that had a clear answer?

  17. Re:My solution for fixing Windows 8 by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does it mean, by induction, that Windows x-1 is better than Windows x?

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  18. Re:Works for tablets by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but it works realy well for tablets and touch-enabled devices.

    How nice for you. But some of us need a desktop to actually get some work done. And there, it sucks.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  19. Um, what? by tgd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Windows 8 is selling extremely well.

    New PCs are what isn't selling, and that has nothing to do with Windows 8, no matter what the Slashdrones like to believe. That has to do with Moore's Law finally outpacing the needs of software, the change to near universal consumption on computers.

    Hardware vendors need to make upgrading hardware compelling. Microsoft can't do that -- they're selling plenty of upgrades, as it is.

  20. Re:No, it's not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This is the only OS in the world that people complain about NOT having a menu to access applications. It's ok that OS X has never had a Start menu.

    First of all, yes, never having had something makes it ok. That means you have room to improve. Where as taking something away that people use, makes Microsoft a failure in the user friendlyness department.

    Second of all, OSX isn't used by anybody except the fanboys that love anything with an Apple logo. Microsoft have these too (I work with one), but they are only a minority of people using Microsoft products.

    And I thought Windows was dumb, Linux rules. But all these "expert" users who claim to run Linux or OS X as their primary OS sure seem distraught by something that shouldn't affect them often because, after all, they wouldn't use Windows if their life depended on it.

    A lot of us Linux users use Windows exactly because our lives depend on it. Linux at home, Windows at work. When Microsoft makes our jobs harder than necessary, yes, we are going to complain. "But you get paid for it" - yeah, but I don't get paid more just because my job got harder.

  21. Re:My solution for fixing Windows 8 by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Paging out every single item from VRAM just because you have to draw the desktop is like dragging everything from your sitting room into the hallway because you want to put on your socks in there.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  22. Re:My solution for fixing Windows 8 by MurukeshM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does it mean, by induction, that Windows x-2 is better than Windows x?

    FTFY.

  23. Re:Uh oh. My common sense is tingling! by ericloewe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nope. As much as I agree with a lot of the Windows 8 hate, after experiencing it on my Samsung Ativ SmartPC Pro (which, by the way, is probably worse than the Surface Pro), those guys are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

    Instead of a simple "Allow us to stay exclusively within Metro or the Desktop" suggestion, they're advocating three seperate versions of Windows: One with only desktop, one with only metro, and a pseudo-version that makes you reboot if you want to switch from metro to desktop or vice-versa or if you want to use the touchscreen. They claim it's a minor issue, but it most certainly would not be - forcing a reboot is obviously not necessary (Nobody complains about Windows 8's oerformance) and it adds a non-trivial delay if you want to detach or reattach the keyboard and use Metro or Desktop, respectively.

    In essence, they have no freaking clue.

  24. Bitching is the name of the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I RTFA, and all I could think about is BITCH BITCH BITCH BITCH.

    The amusing thing is that it is a trend no one seems to admit to.

    Vista comes out - Everyone says: "But it sucks and it breaks compatibility!" (Yes, it sucked initially, but it was decent enough [emphasis on decent] right before 7 came out.)
    7 comes out - Everyone says: "But Vista sucked! Why would I leave the stability (editor's note: HAHAHAHAHA!) of XP for 7 when it is just an update to the terribleness of Vista? (7 was great on release and is still great to this day.)
    8 comes out - Everyone says: "WTF, why would you change everything? Screw you MS!" (Not touching this. I like 8, that's my final comment on the subject.)

    And meanwhile, there are still arguments from folks that people should stay on XP as opposed to moving up to at least 7.

    So BITCH BITCH BITCHing is the standard OP regarding their releases from the past half decade. Which is probably a part of the reason they don't care too much about catering to every users' whim in terms of "improvements." They know people will bitch some more anyway.

  25. Re:No, it's not. by ThePhilips · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's ok that OS X has never had a Start menu.

    Mac OS X, since the early version has excellent support for keyboard shortcuts. (Albeit tricky to configure.) And applications are always installed in one single location on Mac OS X - unlike Windows where some are in Program Files, some in Program Files x64, some in Windows, some in system32, etc. And applications on Mac OS are represented with a single user-friendly icon - not a folder with pile of subfolders where you still have to hunt for the proper executable. Bonus: the Dock (now also in Windows since 7) was always there to quickly access often used applications.

    And finally, since the introduction of the whole-OS-and-hard-drive search function, it is a matter of pressing Cmd+Space, typing application name and pressing Enter. (Bonus: pressing Cmd+Space and searching doesn't steal focus, pressing Win to access Win7 menu's search does still the focus from active application. (Win8 - it's not only steals focus, it's switching whole desktop to different UI mode.) Some Windows applications have problems properly restoring focus where user left it before Alt+Tab or the focus steal.)

    All in all, Mac OS was made from ground up to live without the Start button. And as such, many functions are provided to access applications and whatnot quickly. On Windows, the MSFT never really bothered to figure out how users actually use the frigging Windows. Metro is not about improvements for the user - it is about sneaking Windows into the tablet market.

    P.S. Do not get me wrong. I'm not huge fan of Mac OS X interface. For example, its nested switching between windows (first switch between applications, then switch between windows; and no, Expose is not the answer) is a horrible cludge.

    --
    All hope abandon ye who enter here.
  26. Re:No, it's not. by kimvette · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Classic Shell makes Windows 8 tolerable, but it doesn't fix the OS's more serious flaws. Microsoft took Windows all the way back to 1.0 by eliminating overlapping windows with the modern interface. Even with classic shell installed, that flaw is not fixed.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50