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.'"
Nice objective summary
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
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.
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.
how is it 10,000 Microsoft engineers and managers couldn't pour piss out of a boot if instructions were on the heal?
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."
You left out one option: Windows 7.
Beware of the Leopard.
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.
"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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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".
Lots of people, obviously. Probably millions. Why'd you ask this question about a statement that had a clear answer?
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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