I understand this guy founded a software company, but he's not exactly been a public figure until now. What's with all the fascination over this investigation?
If it seems essential, millions of users are screaming "we need it" and third parties are writing extensions to put it back, it was essential.
Just like people were screaming for the classic start menu when the new one was introduced in Windows Vista, or people were screaming for the program manager when the start menu was initially introduced. People complaining they don't like change or new things is nothing new.
See the following for a brief internet history lesson:
To be clear, all these links are about bringing back the "Classic" (for varying definitions of classic) start menu to either XP, Vista, or Windows 7. Yes, every Windows version has faced the same resistance. Windows 8 is probably facing more because A) it's a bigger change than ever and B) more people are using computers than ever.
Where have all the critics gone? It's been only nine months since Windows 95 made its long-awaited debut amid much naysaying and predictions of doom, yet the endless carping appears to have ebbed. Did '95 just go away or buckle beneath the waves of criticism? No,in fact, Windows '95 has settled in quite nicely as the operating system of choice.
The human condition seems resistant to change by nature, especially when a learning curve is required during adulthood. We are creatures of habit, but the migration to Windows 95 has proven to be painless and even die hard DOS and Windows 3.x critics are slowly seeing the light and playing "one-up" as they share their favorite Win95 shortcuts or tricks.
In 9 months, I'm sure the daily march of Windows 8 hate across the Slashdot front page will come to an end in much the same way.
The start menu is a nicely organized hierarchical structure where it's easy to find applications I might not necessarily know the name of off the top of my head.
Then go to the all apps list. It's the same hierarchical structure derived from the same folder as the old start menu: %USERPROFILE%\Start Menu\Programs. You can even pin this folder as a toolbar on the taskbar and you have your start menu back.
Not to mention from what I've read and seen demonstrated the Metro interface could possibly be used as advertising platform by constantly updating tiles to display new sales, promotions, etc...
So you haven't actually personally used it then? Anyway, you *choose* the apps you want on your start screen. If some app is trying to advertise to you, then delete it. Alternatively, you can turn live tiles off on a per-app basis.
BTW, this is not an obvious key combination. It does nothing in Win7.
Keyboard shortcuts are never obvious. They are meant for power users who want to be more efficient. This is why I listed the more discoverable forms, such as accessing the search charm or from the start screen (which you eventually found even though you didn't read my directions on how to find it).
P.S. I found it in the bottom bar after right-clicking on the start screen.
That's exactly what I said to do.
Charms menu + Search. That brought up (same as Win+Q) a billion trillion of tiles, all randomly placed in the screen seemingly in the order of installation. They cannot be dragged. They are not sorted.
They are not randomly placed, they are sorted alphabetically. This is basically the all programs folder in the start menu, with every folder open. They cannot be dragged or sorted, but neither can the all programs folder in Windows 7, so no functionality lost. You can manually sort and arrange this list by going to C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\StartMenu\Programs or %USERPROFILE%\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs to edit your local start menu.... same as in Windows 7. Or you can right click on a program and click "Open File Location" to be directed to the same place.
Earlier versions of Windows had hierarchical menus that are automatically built as the software installs. They were structured as "Company" / "Product" / "Items". Very easy to see.
This is the same as the all apps list. I find the Windows 8 form more convenient, because I don't have to open folders to see what's in them. It's also full screen so I can see more objects at once.
Any subset of those shortcuts could be also pinned to the desktop, quick launch (WinXP) or the toolbar (Win7) and to the static start menu (Vista/Win7.)
Not quite. Not everything can be pinned to start or desktop or taskbar. Try pinning singular files or fodlers to the start menu for instance. Can't in Windows 7, can in Windows 8.
Win8 only allows pinning to the start menu and to the toolbar. Pinning to the desktop requires to create the shortcut manually.
Desktop shortcuts are usually offered at install time. This is how most people get shortcuts on their desktop. True, the send to option is removed from the start screen, but if you want to do the same just click "Open Folder" and you can right click and send to desktop. But realistically, most people will just put the shortcut on the desktop at install time.
For added convenience, the Start Menu folder tree is gone from the user's home directory (I cannot find it, at least.)
It's located at the same place it was in Windows 7, which I listed above.
Thanks to MS there is no way to create folders in the Start screen to keep less useful tiles there.
Of course you can create folders.... you can pin any folder you want to the start screen, unlike in windows 7. These can contain any shortcuts you want. But you can also divide the start screen into groups and name them. I have a "misc" group I keep at the end of my start screen for this purpose.
Win8 is a huge step back for a power user
I disagree. There are more keyboard shortcuts than ever, there are more power-user features than ever (improved multi-monitor support, vastly improved task manager, enhanced move/copy dialogue), and the win+x menu is probably the best thing to ever happen to Windows for power users.
Win8 takes away important, necessary customization and replaces it with this "one size fits all" interface that really only fits tablet users, and even that remains to be seen.
Windows 8 takes nothing away from your ability to customize the UI to your needs. Again, as I pointed out you can install
how the hell do I know what software is installed on this box?
All apps. Keyboard shortcut: Win + Q. Or right click the start screen and click all apps. Or bring up the charms menu and press the search button... all apps are listed there.
Yeah, the Surface is Microsoft's attempt to reverse the "race to the bottom" price war going on with OEMs. What resulted from this was a market flooded with the cheapest, shittiest, most low margin products out there, and really had a negative impact for the Windows brand. When someone buys a crappy PC, they blame two people: the OEM and Microsoft.
With Surface and Windows 8 in general, Microsoft was hoping OEMs would focus on creating devices with features consumers actually wanted to pay for, instead of paying as little as possible for as little PC as possible. So far this seems like the strategy is working; in the NPD article which was recently discussed on Slashdot, commentors glossed over this bit contained in the report:
Average selling prices of Windows computing devices have jumped significantly this year. Last year, overall ASP was $433 while this year’s ASP over the past four weeks has risen to $477. Windows 8 notebooks have seen a nearly $80 rise in selling prices versus the prior year, propelled by the aforementioned strong performance of touchscreen devices and a solid uptick in the pricing on mainstream notebooks. Windows 8 desktop ASPs were also strong with selling prices up nearly 10 percent, driven by the same factors as notebook sales.
And further there is this article, published yesterday, which says demand for PCs with touch features is strong.
"Touch machines are actually selling above expectations," said Bob O'Donnell, a program vice president at IDC. And that means supply shortages. "Some vendors are actually facing shortages because touch panels are in limited supply. Vendors are saying they can't get as many touch-based machines as they would like to meet the demand that they're seeing."
The article goes on to say that cheaper non-touch PCs are in lower demand than expected, but this might be what Microsoft had intended: raising prices by offering compelling features, rather than offering rock bottom (in terms of specs and price) PCs that people purchase but end up hating because the value is so low.
you have to leave options for people who are comfortable with your old UI paradigm or no one will bother to make the transition
You're acting as if there isn't an entire legacy desktop a single click away in Windows 8. As far as a "classic shell" there is in fact such a thing that exists today. No need to wait on Microsoft. Either way, this complaint has exactly zero relevance to the Surface, where the new UI is actually much more usable than the old one.
That's hardly a good reason to follow the strategy they did. First, even if they did release to other retail channels, that still wouldn't give a measure of the actual number of units sold unless every retailer published their units sold. Second, there are other ways to estimate the number sold, including surveys, app usage statistics, ad impressions, etc. This ad company, for instance estimates that Surface accounted for 11% of computers running Windows 8/RT on 11/14. This can be used to estimate actual unit numbers using statistical tools. Finally, MS is actually selling in limited 3rd party channels like Best Buy.
I feel the more plausible reasons for limited distribution are:
1) Proceeding with caution in their first consumer PC endeavor
2) Not alienating OEM partners
Honestly I never understood the "too late to the game argument." The same was said about Apple in 2006, and again about Android in 2008. The length of the "game" in this case is measured in decades, not months, and time and time again it's been shown that the first mover does not always maintain his advantage. iOS is the case in point here.
With respect to the Surface and Windows RT in general, the only downsides in my opinion are the small app store (which will fix itself) and low resolution displays. Despite this, they still offer many advantages over the iPad including a full-size USB port, 99% office compatibility, multi user OS, the ability to run two apps side-by-side, full open file system, SD memory expansion, OS-wide keyboard and mouse support, full multi-monitor support, USB compatibility with devices (mice, keyboards, printers, cameras, game controllers etc.).
With respect to sales in particular of the Surface, I think it reflects much more on the distribution strategy than the device itself. Surface is available in very few countries, and in those countries is restricted to mostly Microsoft-only retail channels. Some of the countries are mail-order only! You're not going to sell much of anything with this strategy, no matter how good it is.
I don't know why Microsoft is doing it this way, but it might be two-fold. First, this is Microsoft's first first-party PC. They probably don't want to take it slow instead of diving head first into the deep end, and wide up screwing things up because of their inexperience. Second, they probably don't want to tick off OEM partners. If there were a Surface sitting next to every Asus or Lenovo tablet in Best Buy and Walmart or what have you, I think these OEMs would be pretty pissed. By restricting sales to channels they control, I think Microsoft has made a good compromise between competing with their own OEM partners and not stepping on their toes directly.
The downside of this is you'll continue to see stories on Slashdot about how poorly it is selling compared to iPad, which is available in every retail store across the globe.
1) Tablets other than the surface run Windows RT. There are about half a dozen models from Asus, Lenovo, Dell, etc.
2) More importantly, most apps are available for both x86 and ARM.
Ultrabooks, despite being slightly larger, seem to be much more capable for the same price. I don't know what Microsoft was thinking. They p'd off their hardware partners to launch this?
Emphasis added. Size and weight is a feature for people considering an ultrabook, much more so than performance (across the board, ultrabooks are relatively crappy performers). I can do plenty on 4hrs battery, and if worse comes to worse I can always recharge. For a larger ultrabook, there's nothing I can do to take away the size and weight.
at the same time advising readers to stay away because of the struggling App ecosystem. Good luck attracting developers that way.
The store is actually fairing very well. Since launch, the number of apps have doubled (at about 26,000 now) and is increasing at a rate of about 20% per week. Many apps have passed the million download mark. The previous link also explains that some apps have even crossed $25k in revenue, which shifts their takeaway from 60% to 80% of revenue for life. This is very attractive to developers. Further, it looks like already the Windows store is outperforming the OSX appstore, which has been open for two years, despite the fact that as of now, more people use OSX than Windows 8. The Windows store has twice as many apps, and daily download volume is 5x higher.
I think the success of the Windows store is an eventuality due to the sheer number of licenses Windows will sell just for being Windows. For the surface and other tablets, I think this is their lifeline, as their app ecosystem will increase regardless of how Surface or any other tablet sells.
Surface has very limited geographic and retail distribution. It seems to me this is Microsoft's effort not to step on OEM partner shoes, who will be selling in Walmart, Best Buy, etc.
They're too fragile, they don't have a DVD drive, they're harder to type on, the screen is tiny, they get dirty with fingerprints, they don't run 99% of software ever written, everything they do on it is designed to cost money, the browsers don't display pages correctly, the battery life is a lie, most don't have USB flash drive capabilities, they don't work with the majority of printers, and it's difficult to do meaningful work on them in any way shape or form.
Ironically, Windows tablets did all of this and more before the iPad was introduced. I still think the reason they sold so poorly is that they cost so much and sacrificed too much performance for the touch screen. My Latitude XT retailed for over $2000 for a base model in 2008. Today's tablet PCs are a whole different breed: they don't cost much more than a regular laptop, they're just as powerful, and Windows 8 has many touch friendly features to make using them as a tablet enjoyable. This time around, it looks like Microsoft is seeing more demand for them as well.
Sorry to reply to you a couple days after you posted this, but after I read your post I got busy and didn’t have time to finish my reply. You inspired me to do some data mining, and as I’ll try to show I think the data is actually pointing in the opposite direction than your post concludes.
Your story is consistent with the facts you’ve presented, but you haven’t presented all of the facts. Allow me to present the other side of the story to try and add some more context to help your extrapolation:
Huh? Microsoft themselves has already admitted that Windows 8 sales are at nearly the EXACT same pace as Windows 7 sales
No, what was said is that Windows 8 sales are in line with Windows 7. We can look at the historical figures to see how Win7 sold; over the course of its lifetime Windows 7 sold on average a pretty flat 20M licenses a month. In the first few months of release it sold an average of 26M licenses a month; during its first 70 days on sale, MS Win7 sold 60M licenses. If they sold 40M in the first 30 days, that leaves only 20M units to sell over the next 40 days including the Christmas season and Black Friday. Selling at this rate (15M a month) is well below what Win7 sold during the rest of its lifetime (20M). The numbers don’t just make sense.
However, what does make sense is that current sales of Win8 are in line with Win7. As I’ll show later, current market share growth of Win8 as measured by statcounter is, in fact, in line with Win7.
Okay... How about actual web usage
Sure, let’s take a closer look though, instead of just reporting a simple difference and calling it a day. Foremost, if you take a look at the actual data, Win8 is growing much differently than Win7 did when it was first released. While Win7 market share grew linearly after launch, Win8 is growing either quadratically, or at least has hit an inflection point and will continue linear growth that about matches (or slightly exceeds) Win7.
Take a look at these figures, derived from worldwide statcounter data. (Statcounter doesn’t publish Win8 data on its own yet, but did so for the period of 10/1 – 11/28 here. To get Win8 stats outside this range, I took the average ‘Linux’ and ‘Other’ (both of which have no growth; average daily change for Linux is.0002, and.002 for Other) percent share from the linked data, and subtract that from the current ‘Other’ data, and what’s left is a good estimate of Win8 share.)
The first chart shows the market share of Win8 over the past 14 days (11/1912-12/2/12), and Win7 over the comparable 14 day period in 2009 (11/15/09 – 11/28/09). If you fit a line to this data, you can see that Win8 is growing at a rate comparable (actually a bit faster) to Win7. The second image shows growth of Win7 over the first quarter of availability, and Growth of Win8 until today. The chart also contains two Win8 growth projections: quadratic (fitted to all the data) and linear (fitted to the past two weeks of data). Even though the quadratic curve is a better fit, the linear projection is probably more likely to pan out and shows Win7-like growth. Either way, what’s clear is that Win8 is not growing the same way Win7 did (linear right out of the gate). There was either a slow start and its growing linearly now, or it’s growing quadratically.
Finally in the figure, I have a comparison of percent growth since launch. You keep making reference that Win8 is behind Win7 in absolute terms, but you are not revealing that Win7 started at a much higher percentage than Win8: 2.21% vs. 0.38%. Even Vista started at a high percentage, at 0.6% according to your w3sch
I posted a list of ways to get an inexpensive education in elsewhere in another thread, but this is probably the number one way to do so. My PhD advisor went to a small local state college for his bachelor's, went to a top 20 school for his Master's, then went to an Ivy League for his PhD (and got paid to do so). He said that throughout the spectrum there are good teachers and bad teachers, and that what you're paying for is name recognition and academic resources.
Saddling people with soul-crushing debt to pay for an education
Who is doing the saddling? Colleges? The government? None of those people are forcing anyone into college. Like you say, there are many well-paying fields where a college degree isn't necessary. Perhaps society is saddling students by stigmatizing dropouts or non-degree holders? I don't know, it's a complex situation, but I do know that students themselves are not without blame for agreeing to take on the debt and for getting an education they neither want or need without considering the consequences of taking out $50k - $100k+ in loans.
Saying that somehow they're just being saddled by this debt by an unknown entity, as if they are clueless horses being lead around by the reigns with no say in the matter is not right.
Re:Look at statistics not the rock star stories
on
Just Say No To College
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Because a college degree costs six figures?
Correction: Some colleges cost six figures. There are many paths to a degree which cost less than 50 grand out of pocket. At the time, my undergraduate university had the top tuition in the nation ($35k per year + room and board), and I graduated with a total of $30k in government subsidized (government pays interest while I'm in school) loans. I did this through merit based scholarships, need based grants (1/2 off tuition), work study, living off campus with roommates, cooking for myself instead of using the meal plan, taking the bus to school instead of driving a car, and working part time on the side.
Other paths to a cheap education include:
*Start at a community college and transfer credits to a state school
*Go to an in state college, especially a satellite campus
*Go to a state college other than Big State U with the expensive football team and partyschool reputation. Here in PA Penn State is that school and it actually can be very expensive if you go to the main campus, but we have other state-run colleges here which are much cheaper.
*Go in with a plan: Don't spend 2 years not knowing what you want to do and finally settle, ending up with a total of 5-6 years. Get in there, do it right, and get out.
*Choose a 3 year or accelerated program, and get a 4 year degree for the price of 3 years.
*Choose a major with job prospects. Math, science, and engineering are all worth the money, even if you spend 6 figures because a) it's the best way to learn the field and b) you'll pay off the loans with a job, even in this down economy all my STEM friends got jobs after college. Art, English, and drama... maybe not so much.
*Take time off before you go to college to work and save for your education. It will cost a lot less than having to take out loans.
*Choose a college that offers a fifth year masters if for free. Many schools do this, which basically saves you $20k - $30k and you leave more qualified with the potential for a higher starting salary.
Any one of these methods I've outlined can lead to a college degree at a fraction of six figures. Sure, it means you're not going to the most expensive brand name. Sure it means having to worry about your grades or risk losing your scholarship. Sure it means working after you get out of class instead of partying. But you'll probably actually grow up of the course of the 4 years by taking some personal responsibility, instead treating college like an extension of your adolescence and leaving as a twenty-something with the mentality of a high school teenager like most college grads.
Imagine an E size screen, vertically in front of you (because displays have been getting larger over time, not smaller) and you're required to touch the upper right or upper left or top part of the screen as 8 requires you to do so in metro mode.
Seriously, this is the THIRD time it's been explained to you that this is not an all or nothing. If you want to interact with a portion of the interface that is inconvenient to do so with touch, simply do so with an alternative input method like mouse. How are you not getting this?
Nobody draws on a vertical surface. Touching a vertical surface to make sweeping gestures (akin to drawing) is a pain in the ass
I think artists and teachers would disagree with you thoroughly. As far as laptops go the displays are not vertical, and adjustable. I write on my tablet pc screen all the time to fill out forms and do drawing in photoshop.
Anyway, I didn't call you "uninformed" so I don't know why you're quoting me as if I did, but I do think you haven't encountered any instances in your life/work where touch is more convenient than mouse/keyboard in the applications you use. I also think unilaterally calling touch on laptops "misguided" based on your own limited experience is in itself misguided. Myself, the author of this story, and many other commentors of this story are direct evidence that refute your position that touch on laptops is not useful.
Yes, in fact it is easier on the experimental interfaces I've designed and tested. As for big huge buttons, it's called modality: the right interface for the right input adjusting for what you're currently using. Seriously, where is your vision? The right interface doesn't exist, but people like you seem to think its impossible and never will. I think that's very short sighted.
I can easily use a mouse and keyboard at the same time. Having to reach up to do an operation would seriously piss me off and cut my productivity in half.
Then how about only using touch where it makes sense and saves you time, and stick to keyboard and mouse where it makes sense and saves time. My favorite example of this is in photoshop. When you select a layer, you get a bounding box with anchors at each corner. With mouse you can then rotate, scale, or translate the layer... but only one at a time, and in the scaling case only along one axis at a time. This makes the process of properly placing a layer iterative. That is, move it, scale it, rotate it, scale it again, rotate it, until you've got it just right.
With multitouch, this could be done in a single fluid gesture: move your fingers to translate, pinch your fingers to scale, spin your fingers to rotate, and it's a completely natural intuitive gesture. I yearn for a day when this is possible in Photoshop, and I will gladly move my hands from keyboard and mouse to the screen in this scenario because it is much more efficient with touch than with the mouse.
We could have been using touch in conjunction with keyboards, mice, and other input devices on office desktops for 30 years or more (Touchscreens actually go back a decade or so before that, and light pens even before that), but we haven't.
I think there are many reasons for this... foremost, interface design was focused around adoption of the mouse, which was also met with much criticism when it was introduced in a world of keyboard-centric software. But also, most touchscreens were not as accurate as they are today, and the ones that were as accurate were prohibitively expensive. It wasn't until the 2000s that we got really good mass-market capacitive multi touch displays.
Because people actually dislike having to poke at a vertical surface all stupid day.
You're still not getting it. It's not poking at the screen all day: it's poking at the screen where it makes sense and where/when touch is more convenient. Multi-touch interfaces have a real advantage that cannot be replicated with mouse and keyboard (i.e. to manipulate more than one object at a time). To dismiss this outright seems like dismissing the mouse in the 80s.
Yes, I like the Vivo tab a lot, and considered getting it, but I decided I really want a tablet with a digitizer, since I used it so much on my old tablet pc. But this is the beauty of a model that does not tie hardware to software like the iPad. Slashdot is so transfixed on how the Surface is doing and whether it's selling because they want to see MS fail. But so far the Surface has limited distribution, limited to Microsoft channels and mostly the US. And there are other Windows RT tablets out there that do nearly the same thing, but come in different configurations and price points that might appeal to someone more than the surface. If someone chooses the Vivo Tab RT over the Surface RT, that's not a loss for Microsoft.
Microsoft doesn't need to sell more Surfaces than Apple sells iPads, just like any one Android model doesn't need to sell more units than iPhone to outpace iOS adoption.
Actually Elop sold his shares and Ballmer doesn't even seem to be in the top 5 individual owners. Only 10% of the stock is owned by insiders, the rest being owned by institutional investors. So it seems that either Microsoft is defrauding everyone including the largest institutional investors in the US, or the Licenses Sold metric is a valid way to measure the pace of sales.
Of course, Microsoft has their own spin on the numbers, but if you take the Vista "Licenses Sold" statistics and put them into context with similar statistics reported by Microsoft for other OSes, you can tell the Vista numbers reported at the time were too low to indicate the OS was growing at an acceptable rate. For instance, consider the following chart, which shows reported sales data from Microsoft for W95 - W7, and projections for W8, based on historical trends. You can easily tell that even with all the double counting, Vista sales are far below what you would expect for an OS that is selling well, such as XP or W7. To me, this says the effect of the double counting from upgrades is negligible compared to the sheer volume of regular license sales that make it to end users.
To check the reasonableness of this, take a look at this data in the chart for W7 sales, compared to actual growth reported by market share trackers like statcounter. The linked chart shows relatively linear (R^2 =.99) monotonic growth of Windows 7 after launch, implying a constant per month rate of sales. The Windows 7 "Licenses Sold" data from Microsoft in my chart shows Windows 7 sold on average 20.10 +- 2.2 Million units per month over the course of 36 months.
So to check to see how the "licenses sold" number reflects real adoption of the OS, we could probably look at the ratio of the rates of sales for Vista and W7 in both units sold and marketshare gain. We would expect, that if licenses sold translates to marketshare gain, then these ratios should be the same.
From the statcounter figures, in the period where Vista was on sale but before W7 was released, it gains marketshare at about.61 percentage points per month. Windows 7, after its release, gained market share at about 1.4 percentage points per month, for a ratio of 2.3. The same ratio for average "Licenses Sold" data is 20.01M/9.54M over the same period (12/2008 - 09/2009 for Vista, 12/2009 - 10/2012 for W7), for a ratio of 2.1. That means that either Microsoft understated Windws 7 Licenses Sold by 6.05%, or the overstated Windows Vista licenses by 5.71%, or some combination thereof.... and factor in Piracy which would not count as license sold.
Anyway, the point is that from past data released by Microsoft for "Licenses Sold" and actual data representing actual OS market share growth, the Licenses Sold metric is very nearly identical to and indicative of growth of the OS.
Agreed. But this is not reason to resist their adoption now. When the mouse was introduced, very few applications let alone operating systems took full advantage of them, and for a long time the keyboard was still a better and more efficient input. But because we didn't throw the mouse into the cupboard of curiosities and lock it away, and instead allowed it to exist along side the keyboard, today computers are much more usable and accessible. NPD is finding indications that people are actually willing to pay a little more for touch screens now, which probably reflects they see them as a feature that adds value to their computer. The prevailing attitude and common wisdom on Slashdot is that a touch screen on a laptop or desktop is a ludicrous idea and only morons and masochists would use such a thing. I think this is the wrong attitude and doesn't reflect actual popular sentiment.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand this guy founded a software company, but he's not exactly been a public figure until now. What's with all the fascination over this investigation?
If it seems essential, millions of users are screaming "we need it" and third parties are writing extensions to put it back, it was essential.
Just like people were screaming for the classic start menu when the new one was introduced in Windows Vista, or people were screaming for the program manager when the start menu was initially introduced. People complaining they don't like change or new things is nothing new.
See the following for a brief internet history lesson:
http://www.uniquetipsonline.com/how-to-bring-back-the-old-windows-xp-style-to-windows-7-start-menu/
http://www.windows7taskforce.com/view/738
http://allnurses-breakroom.com/technology-internet-software/bring-back-xp-787518.html
http://www.errorteck.com/good-to-know/windows-7-tips-and-tricks/how-to-bring-back-the-windows-xp-start-menu.html
http://www.killertechtips.com/2009/05/20/get-the-classic-start-menu-in-windows-7/
http://www.ehow.com/how_5887131_start-menu-back-xp.html
To be clear, all these links are about bringing back the "Classic" (for varying definitions of classic) start menu to either XP, Vista, or Windows 7. Yes, every Windows version has faced the same resistance. Windows 8 is probably facing more because A) it's a bigger change than ever and B) more people are using computers than ever.
Here is one of my favorite articles, which muses on the rampant criticism of Windows 95.
Where have all the critics gone? It's been only nine months since Windows 95 made its long-awaited debut amid much naysaying and predictions of doom, yet the endless carping appears to have ebbed. Did '95 just go away or buckle beneath the waves of criticism? No,in fact, Windows '95 has settled in quite nicely as the operating system of choice.
The human condition seems resistant to change by nature, especially when a learning curve is required during adulthood. We are creatures of habit, but the migration to Windows 95 has proven to be painless and even die hard DOS and Windows 3.x critics are slowly seeing the light and playing "one-up" as they share their favorite Win95 shortcuts or tricks.
In 9 months, I'm sure the daily march of Windows 8 hate across the Slashdot front page will come to an end in much the same way.
The start menu is a nicely organized hierarchical structure where it's easy to find applications I might not necessarily know the name of off the top of my head.
Then go to the all apps list. It's the same hierarchical structure derived from the same folder as the old start menu: %USERPROFILE%\Start Menu\Programs. You can even pin this folder as a toolbar on the taskbar and you have your start menu back.
Not to mention from what I've read and seen demonstrated the Metro interface could possibly be used as advertising platform by constantly updating tiles to display new sales, promotions, etc...
So you haven't actually personally used it then? Anyway, you *choose* the apps you want on your start screen. If some app is trying to advertise to you, then delete it. Alternatively, you can turn live tiles off on a per-app basis.
BTW, this is not an obvious key combination. It does nothing in Win7.
Keyboard shortcuts are never obvious. They are meant for power users who want to be more efficient. This is why I listed the more discoverable forms, such as accessing the search charm or from the start screen (which you eventually found even though you didn't read my directions on how to find it).
P.S. I found it in the bottom bar after right-clicking on the start screen.
That's exactly what I said to do.
Charms menu + Search. That brought up (same as Win+Q) a billion trillion of tiles, all randomly placed in the screen seemingly in the order of installation. They cannot be dragged. They are not sorted.
They are not randomly placed, they are sorted alphabetically. This is basically the all programs folder in the start menu, with every folder open. They cannot be dragged or sorted, but neither can the all programs folder in Windows 7, so no functionality lost. You can manually sort and arrange this list by going to C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\StartMenu\Programs or %USERPROFILE%\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs to edit your local start menu.... same as in Windows 7. Or you can right click on a program and click "Open File Location" to be directed to the same place.
Earlier versions of Windows had hierarchical menus that are automatically built as the software installs. They were structured as "Company" / "Product" / "Items". Very easy to see.
This is the same as the all apps list. I find the Windows 8 form more convenient, because I don't have to open folders to see what's in them. It's also full screen so I can see more objects at once.
Any subset of those shortcuts could be also pinned to the desktop, quick launch (WinXP) or the toolbar (Win7) and to the static start menu (Vista/Win7.)
Not quite. Not everything can be pinned to start or desktop or taskbar. Try pinning singular files or fodlers to the start menu for instance. Can't in Windows 7, can in Windows 8.
Win8 only allows pinning to the start menu and to the toolbar. Pinning to the desktop requires to create the shortcut manually.
Desktop shortcuts are usually offered at install time. This is how most people get shortcuts on their desktop. True, the send to option is removed from the start screen, but if you want to do the same just click "Open Folder" and you can right click and send to desktop. But realistically, most people will just put the shortcut on the desktop at install time.
For added convenience, the Start Menu folder tree is gone from the user's home directory (I cannot find it, at least.)
It's located at the same place it was in Windows 7, which I listed above.
Thanks to MS there is no way to create folders in the Start screen to keep less useful tiles there.
Of course you can create folders.... you can pin any folder you want to the start screen, unlike in windows 7. These can contain any shortcuts you want. But you can also divide the start screen into groups and name them. I have a "misc" group I keep at the end of my start screen for this purpose.
Win8 is a huge step back for a power user
I disagree. There are more keyboard shortcuts than ever, there are more power-user features than ever (improved multi-monitor support, vastly improved task manager, enhanced move/copy dialogue), and the win+x menu is probably the best thing to ever happen to Windows for power users.
Win8 takes away important, necessary customization and replaces it with this "one size fits all" interface that really only fits tablet users, and even that remains to be seen.
Windows 8 takes nothing away from your ability to customize the UI to your needs. Again, as I pointed out you can install
how the hell do I know what software is installed on this box?
All apps. Keyboard shortcut: Win + Q. Or right click the start screen and click all apps. Or bring up the charms menu and press the search button... all apps are listed there.
With Surface and Windows 8 in general, Microsoft was hoping OEMs would focus on creating devices with features consumers actually wanted to pay for, instead of paying as little as possible for as little PC as possible. So far this seems like the strategy is working; in the NPD article which was recently discussed on Slashdot, commentors glossed over this bit contained in the report:
Average selling prices of Windows computing devices have jumped significantly this year. Last year, overall ASP was $433 while this year’s ASP over the past four weeks has risen to $477. Windows 8 notebooks have seen a nearly $80 rise in selling prices versus the prior year, propelled by the aforementioned strong performance of touchscreen devices and a solid uptick in the pricing on mainstream notebooks. Windows 8 desktop ASPs were also strong with selling prices up nearly 10 percent, driven by the same factors as notebook sales.
And further there is this article, published yesterday, which says demand for PCs with touch features is strong.
"Touch machines are actually selling above expectations," said Bob O'Donnell, a program vice president at IDC. And that means supply shortages. "Some vendors are actually facing shortages because touch panels are in limited supply. Vendors are saying they can't get as many touch-based machines as they would like to meet the demand that they're seeing."
The article goes on to say that cheaper non-touch PCs are in lower demand than expected, but this might be what Microsoft had intended: raising prices by offering compelling features, rather than offering rock bottom (in terms of specs and price) PCs that people purchase but end up hating because the value is so low.
you have to leave options for people who are comfortable with your old UI paradigm or no one will bother to make the transition
You're acting as if there isn't an entire legacy desktop a single click away in Windows 8. As far as a "classic shell" there is in fact such a thing that exists today. No need to wait on Microsoft. Either way, this complaint has exactly zero relevance to the Surface, where the new UI is actually much more usable than the old one.
That's hardly a good reason to follow the strategy they did. First, even if they did release to other retail channels, that still wouldn't give a measure of the actual number of units sold unless every retailer published their units sold. Second, there are other ways to estimate the number sold, including surveys, app usage statistics, ad impressions, etc. This ad company, for instance estimates that Surface accounted for 11% of computers running Windows 8/RT on 11/14. This can be used to estimate actual unit numbers using statistical tools. Finally, MS is actually selling in limited 3rd party channels like Best Buy.
I feel the more plausible reasons for limited distribution are:
1) Proceeding with caution in their first consumer PC endeavor
2) Not alienating OEM partners
I called this one right when they came out....
This story is not about Surface Pro. They're not even on sale yet.
Honestly I never understood the "too late to the game argument." The same was said about Apple in 2006, and again about Android in 2008. The length of the "game" in this case is measured in decades, not months, and time and time again it's been shown that the first mover does not always maintain his advantage. iOS is the case in point here.
With respect to the Surface and Windows RT in general, the only downsides in my opinion are the small app store (which will fix itself) and low resolution displays. Despite this, they still offer many advantages over the iPad including a full-size USB port, 99% office compatibility, multi user OS, the ability to run two apps side-by-side, full open file system, SD memory expansion, OS-wide keyboard and mouse support, full multi-monitor support, USB compatibility with devices (mice, keyboards, printers, cameras, game controllers etc.).
With respect to sales in particular of the Surface, I think it reflects much more on the distribution strategy than the device itself. Surface is available in very few countries, and in those countries is restricted to mostly Microsoft-only retail channels. Some of the countries are mail-order only! You're not going to sell much of anything with this strategy, no matter how good it is.
I don't know why Microsoft is doing it this way, but it might be two-fold. First, this is Microsoft's first first-party PC. They probably don't want to take it slow instead of diving head first into the deep end, and wide up screwing things up because of their inexperience. Second, they probably don't want to tick off OEM partners. If there were a Surface sitting next to every Asus or Lenovo tablet in Best Buy and Walmart or what have you, I think these OEMs would be pretty pissed. By restricting sales to channels they control, I think Microsoft has made a good compromise between competing with their own OEM partners and not stepping on their toes directly.
The downside of this is you'll continue to see stories on Slashdot about how poorly it is selling compared to iPad, which is available in every retail store across the globe.
1) Tablets other than the surface run Windows RT. There are about half a dozen models from Asus, Lenovo, Dell, etc.
2) More importantly, most apps are available for both x86 and ARM.
Ultrabooks, despite being slightly larger, seem to be much more capable for the same price. I don't know what Microsoft was thinking. They p'd off their hardware partners to launch this?
Emphasis added. Size and weight is a feature for people considering an ultrabook, much more so than performance (across the board, ultrabooks are relatively crappy performers). I can do plenty on 4hrs battery, and if worse comes to worse I can always recharge. For a larger ultrabook, there's nothing I can do to take away the size and weight.
at the same time advising readers to stay away because of the struggling App ecosystem. Good luck attracting developers that way.
The store is actually fairing very well. Since launch, the number of apps have doubled (at about 26,000 now) and is increasing at a rate of about 20% per week. Many apps have passed the million download mark. The previous link also explains that some apps have even crossed $25k in revenue, which shifts their takeaway from 60% to 80% of revenue for life. This is very attractive to developers. Further, it looks like already the Windows store is outperforming the OSX appstore, which has been open for two years, despite the fact that as of now, more people use OSX than Windows 8. The Windows store has twice as many apps, and daily download volume is 5x higher.
I think the success of the Windows store is an eventuality due to the sheer number of licenses Windows will sell just for being Windows. For the surface and other tablets, I think this is their lifeline, as their app ecosystem will increase regardless of how Surface or any other tablet sells.
Surface has very limited geographic and retail distribution. It seems to me this is Microsoft's effort not to step on OEM partner shoes, who will be selling in Walmart, Best Buy, etc.
They're too fragile, they don't have a DVD drive, they're harder to type on, the screen is tiny, they get dirty with fingerprints, they don't run 99% of software ever written, everything they do on it is designed to cost money, the browsers don't display pages correctly, the battery life is a lie, most don't have USB flash drive capabilities, they don't work with the majority of printers, and it's difficult to do meaningful work on them in any way shape or form.
Ironically, Windows tablets did all of this and more before the iPad was introduced. I still think the reason they sold so poorly is that they cost so much and sacrificed too much performance for the touch screen. My Latitude XT retailed for over $2000 for a base model in 2008. Today's tablet PCs are a whole different breed: they don't cost much more than a regular laptop, they're just as powerful, and Windows 8 has many touch friendly features to make using them as a tablet enjoyable. This time around, it looks like Microsoft is seeing more demand for them as well.
Your story is consistent with the facts you’ve presented, but you haven’t presented all of the facts. Allow me to present the other side of the story to try and add some more context to help your extrapolation:
Huh? Microsoft themselves has already admitted that Windows 8 sales are at nearly the EXACT same pace as Windows 7 sales
No, what was said is that Windows 8 sales are in line with Windows 7. We can look at the historical figures to see how Win7 sold; over the course of its lifetime Windows 7 sold on average a pretty flat 20M licenses a month. In the first few months of release it sold an average of 26M licenses a month; during its first 70 days on sale, MS Win7 sold 60M licenses. If they sold 40M in the first 30 days, that leaves only 20M units to sell over the next 40 days including the Christmas season and Black Friday. Selling at this rate (15M a month) is well below what Win7 sold during the rest of its lifetime (20M). The numbers don’t just make sense.
However, what does make sense is that current sales of Win8 are in line with Win7. As I’ll show later, current market share growth of Win8 as measured by statcounter is, in fact, in line with Win7.
Okay... How about actual web usage
Sure, let’s take a closer look though, instead of just reporting a simple difference and calling it a day. Foremost, if you take a look at the actual data, Win8 is growing much differently than Win7 did when it was first released. While Win7 market share grew linearly after launch, Win8 is growing either quadratically, or at least has hit an inflection point and will continue linear growth that about matches (or slightly exceeds) Win7.
.0002, and .002 for Other) percent share from the linked data, and subtract that from the current ‘Other’ data, and what’s left is a good estimate of Win8 share.)
Take a look at these figures, derived from worldwide statcounter data. (Statcounter doesn’t publish Win8 data on its own yet, but did so for the period of 10/1 – 11/28 here. To get Win8 stats outside this range, I took the average ‘Linux’ and ‘Other’ (both of which have no growth; average daily change for Linux is
The first chart shows the market share of Win8 over the past 14 days (11/1912-12/2/12), and Win7 over the comparable 14 day period in 2009 (11/15/09 – 11/28/09). If you fit a line to this data, you can see that Win8 is growing at a rate comparable (actually a bit faster) to Win7. The second image shows growth of Win7 over the first quarter of availability, and Growth of Win8 until today. The chart also contains two Win8 growth projections: quadratic (fitted to all the data) and linear (fitted to the past two weeks of data). Even though the quadratic curve is a better fit, the linear projection is probably more likely to pan out and shows Win7-like growth. Either way, what’s clear is that Win8 is not growing the same way Win7 did (linear right out of the gate). There was either a slow start and its growing linearly now, or it’s growing quadratically.
Finally in the figure, I have a comparison of percent growth since launch. You keep making reference that Win8 is behind Win7 in absolute terms, but you are not revealing that Win7 started at a much higher percentage than Win8: 2.21% vs. 0.38%. Even Vista started at a high percentage, at 0.6% according to your w3sch
I posted a list of ways to get an inexpensive education in elsewhere in another thread, but this is probably the number one way to do so. My PhD advisor went to a small local state college for his bachelor's, went to a top 20 school for his Master's, then went to an Ivy League for his PhD (and got paid to do so). He said that throughout the spectrum there are good teachers and bad teachers, and that what you're paying for is name recognition and academic resources.
Saddling people with soul-crushing debt to pay for an education
Who is doing the saddling? Colleges? The government? None of those people are forcing anyone into college. Like you say, there are many well-paying fields where a college degree isn't necessary. Perhaps society is saddling students by stigmatizing dropouts or non-degree holders? I don't know, it's a complex situation, but I do know that students themselves are not without blame for agreeing to take on the debt and for getting an education they neither want or need without considering the consequences of taking out $50k - $100k+ in loans.
Saying that somehow they're just being saddled by this debt by an unknown entity, as if they are clueless horses being lead around by the reigns with no say in the matter is not right.
Because a college degree costs six figures?
Correction: Some colleges cost six figures. There are many paths to a degree which cost less than 50 grand out of pocket. At the time, my undergraduate university had the top tuition in the nation ($35k per year + room and board), and I graduated with a total of $30k in government subsidized (government pays interest while I'm in school) loans. I did this through merit based scholarships, need based grants (1/2 off tuition), work study, living off campus with roommates, cooking for myself instead of using the meal plan, taking the bus to school instead of driving a car, and working part time on the side.
Other paths to a cheap education include:
Any one of these methods I've outlined can lead to a college degree at a fraction of six figures. Sure, it means you're not going to the most expensive brand name. Sure it means having to worry about your grades or risk losing your scholarship. Sure it means working after you get out of class instead of partying. But you'll probably actually grow up of the course of the 4 years by taking some personal responsibility, instead treating college like an extension of your adolescence and leaving as a twenty-something with the mentality of a high school teenager like most college grads.
Imagine an E size screen, vertically in front of you (because displays have been getting larger over time, not smaller) and you're required to touch the upper right or upper left or top part of the screen as 8 requires you to do so in metro mode.
Seriously, this is the THIRD time it's been explained to you that this is not an all or nothing. If you want to interact with a portion of the interface that is inconvenient to do so with touch, simply do so with an alternative input method like mouse. How are you not getting this?
Nobody draws on a vertical surface. Touching a vertical surface to make sweeping gestures (akin to drawing) is a pain in the ass
I think artists and teachers would disagree with you thoroughly. As far as laptops go the displays are not vertical, and adjustable. I write on my tablet pc screen all the time to fill out forms and do drawing in photoshop.
Anyway, I didn't call you "uninformed" so I don't know why you're quoting me as if I did, but I do think you haven't encountered any instances in your life/work where touch is more convenient than mouse/keyboard in the applications you use. I also think unilaterally calling touch on laptops "misguided" based on your own limited experience is in itself misguided. Myself, the author of this story, and many other commentors of this story are direct evidence that refute your position that touch on laptops is not useful.
Yes, in fact it is easier on the experimental interfaces I've designed and tested. As for big huge buttons, it's called modality: the right interface for the right input adjusting for what you're currently using. Seriously, where is your vision? The right interface doesn't exist, but people like you seem to think its impossible and never will. I think that's very short sighted.
I can easily use a mouse and keyboard at the same time. Having to reach up to do an operation would seriously piss me off and cut my productivity in half.
Then how about only using touch where it makes sense and saves you time, and stick to keyboard and mouse where it makes sense and saves time. My favorite example of this is in photoshop. When you select a layer, you get a bounding box with anchors at each corner. With mouse you can then rotate, scale, or translate the layer... but only one at a time, and in the scaling case only along one axis at a time. This makes the process of properly placing a layer iterative. That is, move it, scale it, rotate it, scale it again, rotate it, until you've got it just right.
With multitouch, this could be done in a single fluid gesture: move your fingers to translate, pinch your fingers to scale, spin your fingers to rotate, and it's a completely natural intuitive gesture. I yearn for a day when this is possible in Photoshop, and I will gladly move my hands from keyboard and mouse to the screen in this scenario because it is much more efficient with touch than with the mouse.
We could have been using touch in conjunction with keyboards, mice, and other input devices on office desktops for 30 years or more (Touchscreens actually go back a decade or so before that, and light pens even before that), but we haven't.
I think there are many reasons for this... foremost, interface design was focused around adoption of the mouse, which was also met with much criticism when it was introduced in a world of keyboard-centric software. But also, most touchscreens were not as accurate as they are today, and the ones that were as accurate were prohibitively expensive. It wasn't until the 2000s that we got really good mass-market capacitive multi touch displays.
Because people actually dislike having to poke at a vertical surface all stupid day.
You're still not getting it. It's not poking at the screen all day: it's poking at the screen where it makes sense and where/when touch is more convenient. Multi-touch interfaces have a real advantage that cannot be replicated with mouse and keyboard (i.e. to manipulate more than one object at a time). To dismiss this outright seems like dismissing the mouse in the 80s.
Yes, I like the Vivo tab a lot, and considered getting it, but I decided I really want a tablet with a digitizer, since I used it so much on my old tablet pc. But this is the beauty of a model that does not tie hardware to software like the iPad. Slashdot is so transfixed on how the Surface is doing and whether it's selling because they want to see MS fail. But so far the Surface has limited distribution, limited to Microsoft channels and mostly the US. And there are other Windows RT tablets out there that do nearly the same thing, but come in different configurations and price points that might appeal to someone more than the surface. If someone chooses the Vivo Tab RT over the Surface RT, that's not a loss for Microsoft.
Microsoft doesn't need to sell more Surfaces than Apple sells iPads, just like any one Android model doesn't need to sell more units than iPhone to outpace iOS adoption.
Actually Elop sold his shares and Ballmer doesn't even seem to be in the top 5 individual owners. Only 10% of the stock is owned by insiders, the rest being owned by institutional investors. So it seems that either Microsoft is defrauding everyone including the largest institutional investors in the US, or the Licenses Sold metric is a valid way to measure the pace of sales.
.99) monotonic growth of Windows 7 after launch, implying a constant per month rate of sales. The Windows 7 "Licenses Sold" data from Microsoft in my chart shows Windows 7 sold on average 20.10 +- 2.2 Million units per month over the course of 36 months.
.61 percentage points per month. Windows 7, after its release, gained market share at about 1.4 percentage points per month, for a ratio of 2.3. The same ratio for average "Licenses Sold" data is 20.01M/9.54M over the same period (12/2008 - 09/2009 for Vista, 12/2009 - 10/2012 for W7), for a ratio of 2.1. That means that either Microsoft understated Windws 7 Licenses Sold by 6.05%, or the overstated Windows Vista licenses by 5.71%, or some combination thereof.... and factor in Piracy which would not count as license sold.
Of course, Microsoft has their own spin on the numbers, but if you take the Vista "Licenses Sold" statistics and put them into context with similar statistics reported by Microsoft for other OSes, you can tell the Vista numbers reported at the time were too low to indicate the OS was growing at an acceptable rate. For instance, consider the following chart, which shows reported sales data from Microsoft for W95 - W7, and projections for W8, based on historical trends. You can easily tell that even with all the double counting, Vista sales are far below what you would expect for an OS that is selling well, such as XP or W7. To me, this says the effect of the double counting from upgrades is negligible compared to the sheer volume of regular license sales that make it to end users.
To check the reasonableness of this, take a look at this data in the chart for W7 sales, compared to actual growth reported by market share trackers like statcounter. The linked chart shows relatively linear (R^2 =
So to check to see how the "licenses sold" number reflects real adoption of the OS, we could probably look at the ratio of the rates of sales for Vista and W7 in both units sold and marketshare gain. We would expect, that if licenses sold translates to marketshare gain, then these ratios should be the same.
From the statcounter figures, in the period where Vista was on sale but before W7 was released, it gains marketshare at about
Anyway, the point is that from past data released by Microsoft for "Licenses Sold" and actual data representing actual OS market share growth, the Licenses Sold metric is very nearly identical to and indicative of growth of the OS.
This will change as time goes on.
Agreed. But this is not reason to resist their adoption now. When the mouse was introduced, very few applications let alone operating systems took full advantage of them, and for a long time the keyboard was still a better and more efficient input. But because we didn't throw the mouse into the cupboard of curiosities and lock it away, and instead allowed it to exist along side the keyboard, today computers are much more usable and accessible. NPD is finding indications that people are actually willing to pay a little more for touch screens now, which probably reflects they see them as a feature that adds value to their computer. The prevailing attitude and common wisdom on Slashdot is that a touch screen on a laptop or desktop is a ludicrous idea and only morons and masochists would use such a thing. I think this is the wrong attitude and doesn't reflect actual popular sentiment.