Microsoft Reacts To Feedback But Did They Get Windows 8.1 Right?

MojoKid writes "Microsoft's Windows "Blue" 8.1 update has been long-awaited. Those who've been using the base OS since launch have no doubt been anticipating some of the enhancements that are coming. At the moment, Windows 8.1 is available only as a preview, and if you are looking to give it a try, there are a couple of things to be aware of. The most important is the fact that once you upgrade, you can't easily downgrade — so you may wish to try the update in a virtual machine or on a test machine if possible. In addition, your current product keys will not work, so you'll effectively be turning your activated OS into an evaluation (it's assumed that once 8.1 goes final, we'll be able to update using our original keys). That said, Microsoft's free update offers a slew of enhancements like a new Start Screen, the return of the Start Button, even quicker shutdown and restart, boot to desktop, quicker integrated search and Skydrive enhancements. All told, Microsoft's new OS release is a more than worthy successor for end users but now Microsoft really needs to work on getting developers on board."

Comments

I tested Windows 8.1

[JustANormalGuy]

I gotta say I'm impressed with Windows 8.1 preview. It is by far the best OS there is. I'm happy that the start button is back and that they've improved Start Screen. The performance upgrades are fantastic. Everything runs so smoothly.

Windows 8.1 is by far the best Windows there is!

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[h4rr4r]

So how much are they paying for posts these days?
I figure it must be down from the glory days of slashdot.

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[JustANormalGuy]

$12 per post, $15 if lengthy

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[Austerity Empowers]

Does the start button work like this: http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/28

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) You can't prove it is an ad agency rather than an obvious troll. You can sue Microsoft and try to use discovery to find out, but how much money are you willing to spend? That would bankrupt Slashdot. And then you'd probably find out it wasn't Microsoft.

(2) The posts are irrelevant. In fact, you guys piling on by replying with your whining is much worse for the quality of discussion than the posts you object to. If you and the others had just shut up and moved on, the moderation system would have taken care of the problem and most people wouldn't have even noticed.

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[jones_supa]

Microsoft doesn't give a flying fuck what is said about them on Slashdot.

Heh. Even Herb Sutter (from the Visual Studio team) has mentioned Slashdot in his talks at Channel 9. I'm sure microsofties occasionally bump on the comments on Slashdot too. This is a quite well-known technology website. I agree that the impact is probably still quite small, but it's not a complete "flying fuck".

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they hiring ? I have an impressive history on this site and I think I can contribute significantly to the cause.

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[CFBMoo1]

I think you are confusing trolls with the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" crowd. My mother who is over 70 has had the same reactions people on Slashdot are having about the new Windows GUI. If she had her way she'd go back to Windows XP's interface cause she knew EXACTLY where everything was and didn't need anyone to change it. Windows 8.1 is just another mess for her to relearn how to do things. I'm sorry, as nice as Metro may be for phones and tablets, it has no place on the desktop.

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[Hassman]

Yeah! We only like paid negative MS posts here!

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[rtkluttz]

I can't believe I'm replying to the troll but heres a list. First and foremost. I don't and never will use a tablet or touch interface for real work so I don't want charms that are huge stealing my screen real estate, or windows that force full screen or any arbitrary size. I want windows that ** I ** can resize to any size I want and have multiples on the screen at one time. i want everything small and precise because I multitask... a LOT.... and with multiple large monitors. I DON'T want an app store that thinks it controls what I can and can't install on my own devices. I shouldn't have to be on a domain to bypass app store crippling of my machine. I say what software goes on and comes off of my own PC and no one else. For my users on the network, hierarchical menus for apps based on purpose is still superior when you are building systems for people so unsavvy they don't even know the name of an app to search for. I don't want cloud integrated into everything by default. As an add-on its just fine, but I don't trust other people and companies with most of my stuff and I surely didn't trust Microsoft even BEFORE this NSA mess. I also want things to work the same way every time. If I click on an icon I want it to start a new instance. Every. Time. I can manage my own windows and decide when I want new ones and when I want pre-existing ones. I don't want Windows trying to decide when I want to maximize a window by getting too close to the top. If I want it maximized, I'll click a button to do so and so on and so on and so on......

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[theskipper]

That explains why APK owns a yacht. With extra storage below deck to store his host files.

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[Curunir_wolf]

Yep. What a disappointment. "Oh, okay, here's your Start button back. What do you mean, menu? You just said "Start Button". There's your Start button, so shut up."

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[flyingfsck]

Hey, don't use my name in vain. Especially when combined in the same sentence with Microsoft, it really hurts.

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[interval1066]

And here's why we still can't:

• File links are still strange, anomalous objects that other truly posix-compliant processes don't know what to do with. If you really think file links on Windows are useful you're fooling yourself or don't know any better.
• The kernel is still a black-box collection of shared objects with a black-box threading model, as opposed to anyone with the time and gumption can look at the linux kernel and directly see why things happen the way they do.
• Objects can still be one of several distinct classes that require special treatment or approches to processing where as in Linux EVERYTHING is ultimately a file, or at least looks like a file, greatly simplifying interfacing.

I KNOW there are other archectural issues that stick in my throat about windows but those three I think about and deal with all the time.

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[osu-neko]

Why are so many of you afraid of change?

Once you've completely misidentified the problem, you'll never find the solution. But I'm sure it makes it a lot easier to dismiss criticism if you can pretend it comes from somewhere unreasonable.

The fact of the matter is, people love change... iff it's change with significant benefits. People like changes for the better. I've heard "I wish this worked that way" a hundred times, and people are ecstatic when you come back and give them an update that makes it work the way they said. People love change if it's a genuine improvement. People only hate change when they can't see any point to it. They may not be formal about it, but everyone runs a bit of a cost/benefit analysis in their minds, and when there's an obvious cost for no significant benefit, or to fix "problems" that they never saw as a problem to begin with, they react negatively, because that's the logical response to a change of that nature.

Why is that so hard?

Irrelevant question. The important question is, "why is that even necessary?" It might have a good answer, but if you can't make that answer clear to people, expect them to react negatively when you ask them to do what they see as unnecessary things for little apparent benefit.

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[KingMotley]

Yeah, I started using windows when it was 1.0 too. I like Windows 8. It boots faster, is more responsive, the redone task manager is awesome (finally), better cache management (kind of important to me since I have 64GB of RAM). The start screen is ok, I rarely use the icons, I just type what I want and hit enter -- I actually go to the start screen maybe twice a week, so it doesn't bother me at all. All my important apps are either pinned to the taskbar, or have an icon on my desktop. Not a big fan of the Metro/Modern UI, but I only use the desktop as I always have. Removing the start "button" actually gained me some space on my task bar, so I actually like it gone.

Saying it's the biggest POS you have ever seen and having used all the versions of Windows, puts you in a very small club, so I would like to introduce you to Microsoft Bob.

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[TsuruchiBrian]

I totally favor fixing things that aint broke. Sometimes people don't know things are broke until you show them a better way.

What I don't like is lack of options. I don;t even care if Metro is the default. I should be allowed to turn it off as an option. There is no reason to force me to use it if I don't like it. I don't think they should remove it either. I'm sure some people like it.

If windows 8 had the ability to turn off metro, it would be just like windows 7 with a few improvements, rather than a disaster.

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[Anonymous Coward]

We developers as Microsoft definitely read Slashdot. Most of us, dare I say. And when there is blatant FUD and misinformation, I myself have stepped in and corrected it with links and citations. If I am giving an opinion piece, I usually post as AC and identify that I work at Microsoft.

But I don't go racing for the first post with some normative statements with a username of JustANormalGuy. This guy is obviously trolling Slashdot by pretending to be a shill.

Re:I tested Windows 8.1

[malkavian]

Hey, guess what.. I've been using computers since the days of the Commodore Pet. I was using and supporting microsoft since the days of MSDOS 3... And I was using UNIX before that.
The bones I've had to pick with MS were originally because they had pretty shoddy tools, compared to the UNIX (for DOS), and no multi-tasking. Through the Windows 3 era, I thought it compared poorly to the Apple UI, and it performed absolutely shoddily when compared to OS/2.. I saw MS's marketing engine fire up, and scare people (needlessly) into just using their product, not by dint of superiority, just because they had cash to throw around. Dirty tricks really were the name of the game.
With the advent of Win95, Microsoft actually had a GUI which I had to admit was well thought out. It did what was wanted in a simple and no fuss way. Sure, it was still a layer above DOS, but it was definitely usable, and actually comfortable.. They'd done their homework on that..
Fast forward to now. They force a UI that's pretty decent for a tablet (quite like how it handles on a tablet) onto a desktop.. And I hate it on the desktop.. The idea of using it for Servers is filling me with dread.. The ergonomics of it are atrocious in that use case; I'm just glad you can do everything in Powershell.. That really is going to be the start of a move to 'Core' install, and just run things via powershell. It's mostly how I do it these days, but I do enjoy the flexibility of the Win7 GUI (I think Win7 is the best OS MS have put out to date). I like the tech improvements behind the scenes in Win8, but after using it, I refuse to install it on my home workstation, and work is never going to move to that version (apart from tablets/kiosks, where it shines).
In an attempt to grab the niche market, they seem to be eviscerating their core one.. Which I really just don't understand.. The strategy that would work would be to have an API that works across all the forms (tablet, kiosk, desktop) with a GUI that you can swap between depending on your needs.. If Android releases get the desktop done nicely (and optimised for desktops, not tablets), then MS could be in with a bigger fight than it expects..

In short, it's a good OS ruined by changes that alienate most people. Not just because they "have to learn something new" (which was their big thing about not shifting to Linux), but because it makes changes with no advantage, and quite frequently to their detriment.

Start Button in 8.1 is useless.

[sconeu]

I downloaded the dev preview.

Yeah, there's a Start button. Big deal. All it does is drop you into Metro -- pardon me. Into The-Interface-Formerly-Known-As-Metro. There's still no Start Menu, which is what the "I want the Start Button" was all about.

Re:Start Button in 8.1 is useless.

[Missing.Matter]

What exactly do you want the start menu back for? The start button can be configured to send you to the All Apps window, which takes you to a sortable list of all your apps. Much more useful than an alphabetical list of folders with identical icons, IMO. You can turn off hot corners. You can boot right to desktop. They've brought back unified search. You can even pull up the (not full screen) search pane directly from the desktop, and search for files and applications in a unified view.

What more exactly do you want? Yes, it's different, but it's getting harder and harder to argue that it's not better. What is so great about the start menu that you refuse nothing less than a line-for-line copy?

Re:Start Button in 8.1 is useless.

[marcosdumay]

What? Are you saying that you want the Start Button to have some action when clicked? If it was so important, you should have documented it at the requirements.

You asked for a button, MS gave you a button. Content yourself with it.

Re:Start Button in 8.1 is useless.

[Missing.Matter]

You press start and type "cmd". Typing on the start screen initiates a search. Alternatively press win+s to open the search panel, and type "cmd". Alternatively right click on the start menu and click run, then type cmd.

Re:Start Button in 8.1 is useless.

[Missing.Matter]

I do so every day. Win8 at hom, Win7 at work. Start screen has all my pinned apps, and I can display more than 30 at a time. It scales great with resolution. With the start menu, the more items on it, the further away your most used app is from the start button. How wonderful. I especially hate the "All Programs" list in the start menu. An alphabetical list of folders named after app publishers instead of actual applications, all with the same icon (why is it even there then?). And it's oh so customizable. You have to go into a semi-hidden directory to edit the folders, and then there's even two foldres to go into: the user folder and the global folder, which you need admin permissions to edit. Why do you need admin privledges to edit a user application menu?

Oh and the hodgepodge of functionality. I love how in the start menu the oft used "search box" is right next to the shut down function, which is right next to a tiny tiny arrow which opens up lock computer/sleep functionalty. Why is the shut off button so large, when I do this function at most once a day? And next to often used functions like search and lock? Great UI.

For me, the start screen is much more customizable, much more informative, and easier to use all around. If I want to launch an app and i'm on the desktop, I win+s to pull up the search bar and type the app name. If I don't know the app name, I open up the "All Apps" window and I sort and I can see all my installed apps at a glance instead of rooting through a tree of vaguely and uninformatively named folders.

Going back is not a breath of fresh air, it's suffocating.

Re:Start Button in 8.1 is useless.

[pla]

What exactly do you want the start menu back for?

Personally, I don't care so much about the formal start menu - I use either shortcut keys or just Win-R the program name for just about everything I don't have as an icon on my desktop. I suspect most people pining for the start menu really don't care about it specifically, but rather, the whole set of known OS behaviors that came with it:

What do I (we?) want? I want the window manager to behave as a window manager. I want small, configurable iconic shortcuts that open programs for me in a window. I want a base desktop that doesn't look like Times Square at night (complete with its many flashing neon ads). I specifically do not want every program to open itself in a more-or-less-modal fullscreen style on my 30" WQXGA display. I have a monitor that big for a reason, and believe it or not, that reason has nothing to do with spending all day prettifying Word documents intended for a booklet layout. I want the "store" to mean I go to Amazon or Newegg in a non-MSIE browser. I do not, ever, want any attempt whatsoever at "upselling" by Microsoft, or worse, the few money-grubing OEM partners of theirs they haven't managed to alienate yet.

In short, I want Windows 7. And if five years from now that means I have to run Linux to get it, I damned well will.

Re:Start Button in 8.1 is useless.

[TMYates]

Start -> Run -> cmd dropped you right into a DOS shell.

To do this in Win 8.1, you need to: Start -> Metro -> ???

Easier.

Windows 8:
Move mouse to bottom left corner and right click. Pick either command prompt or command prompt in admin mode

Windows 8.1:
Right click start logo. Pick either command prompt or command prompt in admin mode

From that same menu I have quick access to options that took more than a few clicks to get to before. Also in 8.1, you can use this to shutdown or restart.

Re:Start Button in 8.1 is useless.

[Missing.Matter]

Can do the same thing in Windows 8.1: http://i.imgur.com/eJgwVTC.jpg

Have you even used the product you're bashing?

Re:Start Button in 8.1 is useless.

[geminidomino]

In my experience, the Windows key's most suitable task seems to be to get accidentally bumped by the side of my hand and minimizing my games at the worst possible moment...

Re:Start Button in 8.1 is useless.

[wierd_w]

I prefer the win7 start menu.

Why?

Let's say I use calculator a lot. I mean A LOT. But, I don't want to put a quick launch button down, because the group policy enforced by my employer locks that thing down tighter than a nun's cunt, prevents it from being resized, enforces that certain things be in it, etc.

The win7 start menu keeps track what what I launch from it frequently, and puts quick links in for those applications, waaaaaaaaaay above the demonized 'all programs' area. I DON'T HAVE TO MANAGE THIS LIST. It is simply populated with what I most frequently invoke. Thus, to start calulator, it is literally: START->Calculator.

TWO CLICKS.

TWO.

Moreover, the software I use TO DO MY JOB, makes very heavy use of the mouse. Letting go of the mouse, so I can type "calc.exe" into the wild blue void is measurably less productive for my use case.

STOP INSISTING THAT ALL USERS ARE DATA ENTRY DRONES.

Moreover? YES, I *HAVE* used windows 8. Know what? It is counter productive to the workflow paradigm of the software I use, because it requires me to let go of the goddamn mouse, and type shit.

Know what else? I use notepad to look at the generated NC code I produce to make sure the toolpaths I am making are generating sane results, ad guess what? Windows 8 tries to make fucking notepad full screen! BULLSHIT, I just need it as a teeny little window to scroll through, jackasses!

I fucking hate the "why are you afraid of change!? Are you some kind of luddite?! You're a luddite aren't you?1 yeah, You're a Luddite if you don't like the new formerly-known-as-metro UI paradigm, because it is new, and the old way is old, and if you like old, and not new, then you are a luddite!" Circular reasoning bullshit. No, I dislike the new windows 8 UI because it fucking sucks for what I do for a living, gets in my way, slows me the fuck down, and invokes assholes to character assasinate me (and others in my boat) when we say we DON'T WANT the windows 8 UI paradigm on the desktop!

Is it so fucking hard to understand that NOT EVERYONE uses the keyboard the way you do, and that this is NOT a case of "idiots at the wheel"? That perhaps, the mouse is a legitimate input device, and not something to arrogantly scorn, since it has real, legitimate uses in graphical design that fucking keyboard shortcut keys will *NEVER* be able to replace?

Of course not. It is just easier to measure everyone else as being whiners, and not having legitimate complaints, because that makes you feel better without having to actually acknowledge wrongdoing, character assasinate them as luddites who are afraid of change, and arrogantly (and ignorantly) assert that they should just use the keyboard instead of the mouse anyway, "because it's faster".

Yeah buddy, try selecting NC geometry to drive 5 axis toolpaths on using the tab key. I fucking dare ya to, and to show how much faster it is. Because it fucking isn't. There are operations you can't even DO without a goddamn mouse in this software, for god's sake!

"Well, just use different software then!" You arrogantly chortle-- Not an option bitches, its mandated by contract agreements what softwares are allowed. Besides, more "open" offerings just don't have the functionality anyway.

Can you do what you do faster with metro by using the keyboard? Quite possibly. That isn't what is being argued.

What is being argued is that what *I* do with the computer is greatly hobbled by metro's hamfisted bullshit, and I have legitimate complaints about it that are fundamentaly intractable by anything other than reverting the changes.

That is why my employer, and our partners we do work for, DON'T USE WIN8.

What would have bee the POLITE thing to do? Turn on metro by default allright, but make it truly optional-- GIVE US A WAY TO TURN IT OFF.

But no, the response we had shoved down our throats so hard that our asses bled?

"Metro is the future! Its faster and better, and the old way is old, and if you don't like it, tha

Yes and no

[ErichTheRed]

It's pretty obvious that someone high enough in their business-customer focused product guys heard enough Start button complaints to get that put back. I know a lot of people wanted the menu to return, but that was doubtful given how much Microsoft wants to see the Store and the whole Apps thing succeed.

They have made a lot of tweaks to make using Windows 8.1 on keyboard-and-mouse PCs much easier, and I'm happy for that. One thing that I desperately want back is the "themeable" user interface on the desktop. I'll even give up the Start Menu for that. I want to be able to choose between the new "Windows 2.0" desktop, the "dated and cheesy" Aero Glass theme I like in Win7, or even go all the way back to "Windows Classic" like I've been able to do since Win2K. That's just the in-box themes too -- lots of vendors used the theming code in the OS to completely transform the desktop. I was really hoping for Aero Glass to make a return (or even Aero without the Glass acceleration.) Unfortunately, it looks like they're still not listening to people on that front.

Re:Yes and no

[JDG1980]

I really don't understand why MS insists on locking down the themes. The engine is fully capable of using whatever theme the user wants, but for unknown reasons this is restricted to the one included theme digitally signed by Microsoft. There is no good reason for that. Why should we have to hack a DLL to get a feature that the OS already supports?

A lot of the issues with Win8 would go away if theming was permitted. (For instance, the one thing I find most annoying about Win8 is the centered title bar text – this breaks the way I've read window titles since Win95.)

Re:Yes and no

[jones_supa]

The engine is fully capable of using whatever theme the user wants, but for unknown reasons this is restricted to the one included theme digitally signed by Microsoft. There is no good reason for that.

There is a very good reason for that. They want to retain a universal look for Windows. Very important for branding.

Meh

[Guspaz]

Start8 (boot-to-desktop, Win7 start menu, remove hotspots) slapped on top of Win8 solves most of my complaints about Win8, and ModernMix makes Metro apps (like Metro Netflix, since it can view SuperHD content) helps with Metro-only apps.

Start8 already has a beta out for Win8.1, to account for the fact that there is now a built-in boot-to-desktop, and that there is a system start button that needs to be removed before the fake one can be added. I'll undoubtedly get Win8.1 to get the improvements, and let Stardock fix the major annoyances for me.

Penny Arcade's Response...

[fallen1]

Pretty much mirrors my own. Although I would add in an extra side of "fuck you"...

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/28

Still nothing better over Windows 7

[jones_supa]

No one is interested in the Modern UI apps and the Start screen is harder to use than the Start menu. It's a jumbled mess of icons which steals your whole screen and you have to move your mouse much more than before. Actually, I have noticed that many resort to just typing the application name they want to use into the search bar as the GUI is so clunky to use.

The minimal performance improvements, improved file transfer dialog, improved task manager, ISO mounting and DirectX 11.2, are not big enough features to justify an upgrade. All those features are good enough in Windows 7 already. Those improvements could have been released as a free Platform Update for Windows 7.

Re:Still nothing better over Windows 7

[JohnFen]

That's how people were using the old start menu too. That's how its supposed to be used.

That's how some people were using it, but for a lot of people, that's the clunkiest possible way to do it. In what world does it make sense to have to remember the name of an application you don't use regularly?

Re:Still nothing better over Windows 7

[tftp]

That's how people were using the old start menu too. That's how its supposed to be used.

The start menu, from Windows 95 and until Vista, had no integrated search. You cannot say "that's how its supposed to be used." It became an option in Vista and 7, but not too many people (per my personal observations) even know that the built-in search exists. Some users that I know do not touch the keyboard unless they must, like for typing an email - and even that they do with one finger, "hunt and peck" style. You can't expect them to remember names of applications. Hell, I don't remember most of the names of applications on this very box. I have better things to remember than that. For those applications that I do remember about, "quick" does not return Quicken, but "quicken" does - how would MS explain that? BTW, QuickTime is not returned either - except the "About QuickTime." This is garbage. Typing is only a tool for some power users, and it has limited value as you cannot know what applications are installed on a given PC that you just connected to. You use the hierarchical menu to find out.

Re:Microsoft's big mistake

[0123456]

.. was naming it Windows 8, instead of Windows Tablet Edition, which could also be added to Windows 7 as a Tablet Mode.

Uh, no.

Windows 8 was a desperate attempt to get some kind of prescence on tablets and phones. To do that, they need apps. To get apps, they need to convince developers that they should develop apps for Windows 8. To do that, they had to push the tablet interface on the desktop.

Of course the idea was retarded from the start, which is why it's come around to bite them in the ass. They threw their desktop users under the bus and gained only a minimal number of tablet and phone users.

As long as Microsoft "dead ends" platforms...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

I put time and money and effort into making salable sofware products. What Microsoft has told me repeatedly is that I don't matter to them. At all.

What would motivate me, as a developer, to invest 1 more minute in a platform that's almost guaranteed to go the way of VB6, Winforms, Silverlight or XNA? Want to go to the web as your customers are demanding? Recode. Want to upgrade that game? Recode? Want to keep that nifty Silverlight app going. Find another platform and recode. Only C++ developers were extended the fundamental courtesy of running unmanaged old code along with .net. Everyone else is essentially told "tough shit." Worse, half-hearted efforts like the VB6 upgrade or WPF/Winforms hosting aren't developed to actually *work* and so end up wasting even more of your time.

VB6 should have upgraded with one click, or run between tags as unmanaged code. Winforms should either have actually been hostable in WPF, or come with a one click upgrade to an ASP simulacrum of Winform code. VBScript and JScript should have migrated to VBScript.net and JScript.net rather than the syntactic abomination that is Powershell. Those would have been the right decisions, had Microsoft given a shit.

When Microsoft finally realizes that the word "Recode" IS ALWAYS THE WRONG ANSWER when a developer needs to migrate to another platform, they might actually get some interest in their products. Not before.

Common courtesy and consideration of the financial needs of real developers would go a long way. The ISV world is not made of C++ elite. It's made of people who have to get some work done and make a living - who do not, and will never aspire to the at the top of the programming heap. That's your core audience, not the 20-something genius you hire from Kazakhstan. Cater to them and their ilk, and them only and you will fail.

Like you're doing now.

Microsoft: 'own goal' once again.

[mbkennel]

Microsoft owns the desktop, and has tons of money. They didn't ever say, "How do we make the desktop really good? How do we use our massive resources to make our customer's lives better?" That can include serious and radical rethinking---if it makes desktop experience better.

Microsoft had a 'smart phone' -- a real computer on a phone with a reasonably capable OS -- long before Apple and Android. Microsoft did see the future and drove into a ditch.

This Windows Phone OS UI was awful. Terrible, revolting. The UI was really bad---because they tried to do a Windows XP on a tiny thing with a stylus. (I had a treo 700 something which I got for free). There was even a little mini "control panel" and similar confusions. Because at that time the ideology was Windows Uber Alles and serving the Windows empire.

Jobs didn't insist on stuffing MacOS UI on the iPhone, because it wouldn't be GOOD for those uses. Even though it was quite different there were no deep strain of serious complaint about the UI.

So phones and tablets get popular. And Microsoft makes the same mistake AGAIN as with Windows Phone (pre 7) -- stuffing a totally inappropriate interface (and one which isn't even that pleasant) somewhere else. This time, unlike Windows Phone, greatly annoying their enormous number of paying customers.

There are all sorts of ideas about how to make better desktops at a deep level (at least browse academia for 20 years) which are substantially more than another skin.

Back in 1995, Microsoft had the good sense to copy something decent for the Win 95 UI, NeXTSTEP, though of course it was degraded, it was still clear and effective enough. Nobody missed Win 3.1's UI. Desktop customers are not stupid dinosaurs, maybe they actually notice better from worse.

Even today, if they re-implemented NeXTSTEP 1993 for Win 9 desktop, they'd still be ahead. Really.

Re:Penny Arcade

[tnk1]

The Metro UI is just fine... maybe even good... for a tablet.

For a mouse driven desktop PC, it is still a pile of pastel colored shit.

All they need to do is not force me to use it on PC and I'm good. I'm not offended that they did it, I just want them to get it out of my way in a place where it is not very efficient. It's not like I am demanding that they re-write the UI, they already had the Windows 7 UI for the desktop. Just slap that on top of your improvements and add the Metro option if you want or need it. Have Metro run on tablets by default and the normal Desktop run on PC's by default.

I understand that sometimes you have to push things, but there is really no benefit to Metro for PC users. There might be one for Microsoft, in that they want everyone to think of Metro as the One and Only Operating System and parlay their desktop market share into tablet share, but that doesn't actually help me in any way.

At this point, they're just being stubborn assholes. The comic got that much right.

It's not about the UI, FFS!

[bluescrn]

Amazed so few people notice/care about the real issue here. It's not about UI fails and touch/mobile focus - that's a minor issue.

It's about Microsoft moving from a 'general purpose computing' model to an 'app store computing' model. Where everything has to be code-signed, approved/censored, and taxed at 30%+.

They are doing this by gradually phasing out the desktop and applying pressure to users to use Metro, by making it harder to avoid - whilst the desktop gradually has functionality stripped out (first the Start menu, now the control panel)

This is why we should absolutely reject Win8. Not because the new start screen is annoying.

Full screen switch produces loss of context

[tepples]

When you start a full-screen application, such as a Windows Store app or the Windows 8 Start Screen, you lose the visual context of having the application semi-visible in the background, and you tend to forget what you were working on. The effect has been called doorway amnesia; see also my previous comments. Classic Shell makes it about as tolerable as Windows 7.

Re:Soviet Microsoft

[alci63]

I always wondered : when Microsoft has these special "show me the source" programs, does it mean that the final client also does compile Windows by itself for deployment ? Or is it more like, "hey, just have look, you see, nothing to be afraid of, trust us. Now take our binaries." ?