Actually, a start icon in the lower left is exactly what I wanted. I like the start screen, but the mouse target for launching it was way too small. 8.1 fixed that.
So... how are you enjoying the free Surface you got from the company? I'm told employees are required to be seen using it. How is that working out for you?
> Vista wasn't particularly bad. It mostly had serious bugs on launch and poor driver support. But, the system itself mainly suffered from the way the UAC worked.
Like they say, you don't get a second chance to make a first impression. By the time the initial problems were fixed, we had already decided not to deploy it. I suspect the same thing will be true of Windows 8 -- even if they fix it now, the damage has already been done.
Name one OS that is just right out of the box and needs no tweaks. Linux always needs fiddling with (that's why you love it) and MacOS's two-finger scroll scrolls the wrong way by default.
At least with Windows 8 you can use AD to roll out suitable settings for everyone in one hit. I'm sure you can do the same thing with Linux/MacOS somehow too.
This is more than tweaks. You don't understand what "lack of control, conveyance, continuity, and context" means to people who are not computer geeks, don't have a job even remotely close to the computer industry, and only need computers to do certain business related tasks. When you're not a computer geek or Microsoft employee, you don't necessarily touch computers every day, and trying to remember which hot corner to touch or where your application is, or how to get out of a full screen Metro app, is not something they're going to remember or even want to try to figure out. This can't be fixed by using A/D to roll out settings.
However, there is a solution. And that is, to stick with Windows 7 until Microsoft abandons this crap. (Actually, we're still largely on XP, but are starting to roll out 7 on new hardware.)
To the shills bleating about people denigrating Windows 8 as "just whiners" are being a bit disingenuous. We run Windows because we have to. Companies standardize on Windows because certain applications only run there. However, we do *not* have to go out and buy whatever crapheap Microsoft grunts out, because we're up on the shallow end of the curve regarding Windows -- with all its faults and security holes, it's gotten about as good as it's going to get. We haven't had to anticipate the large collection bugfixes, paradigm fixes and interface compatibility that is the next version of Windows since XP. There is no new USB-like interface that would make us snap up 98SE as soon as it's available. There's no huge stability increase that would make us slaver for Win2000 or WinXP. Even Win7 was really just a minor improvement.
The issue, if any, is that new systems have Win8 crapped all over it, and Win8 is another one of those ill-advised attempts at "leading the industry" by producing a bad copy of what Microsoft thinks everyone else is doing. This requires reimaging at work, which is ok because we'd probably do that anyway, and I can still get Win7 through my OEM, so systems I build for friends and relatives are not affected that much. But someone buys a laptop and it has that nasty interface on it, and they bring it to me, and well, I'm afraid I have some bad news. I can put the start menu back, but all the other stuff -- the charms and hot corners and sliding gestures that can't be done on a trackpad, you're stuck with those, unless you pay for another copy of Windows.
We are at the point where we don't care about a new OS anymore, because we have actual work to do that does not entail learning the quirks of a new OS.
This goes double for servers. We still have a lot of stuff running on Server 2003, because it works and there's no reason to swap it out. Newer machines will have Server 2008, which is still ok, but we have no inclination to deal with the metro-esque misfeatures of 2012.
Whatever products Microsoft craps out, there are always a handful of people somewhere who against all reason like it. There were a handful of people who liked Microsoft Bob. A company I used to work for actually started rolling out Windows ME, based on user trials, although they realized their mistake and pulled it back a month later. I have a friend who still has a laptop running Vista, and she's fine with it, although whenever something goes wrong or needs to change, (which is annoyingly often) she always brings it to me.
So yes, I'm sure there are one or two people out there who like the retro-8bit-arcade look-and-feel that is the Metro interface. Maybe it reminds them of when they were playing Space Invaders on the cocktail table machine while sipping their wine spritzers and listening to a bad cover of "Shadow Dancing". People like a lot of things, for a lot of reasons. But to have a successful business, you need a large enough number of people liking the product to meet investor expectations. Doesn't seem likely.
Thanks to Penny Arcade I thought the same thing - however its not true. I did download the community release and you can indeed have an old school start menu again.
Only for certain rather bizarre values of "old school start menu". The icon takes you back to the start screen, which is precisely, absolutely, not the point of having a start button. You cannot change this without third party software, which, given that choice, makes Win8 a corporate non-player. Win7 will have to last us until Microsoft gets a clue.
> If you know, I don't sit on my ass and whine like a spoiled brat who can't take any initiative.
You don't get it. (1) Yes I can fix it. But why should I buy something that I need to beat into submission, when what I have works fine? (2) Yes I can fix it, but the 10,000+ users in my company, most of whom have other jobs than being a computer geek, would struggle with it, and I'd lose my job if I foisted that off on them.
Let's not confuse the two -- an icon in the lower left corner that takes one to the "start screen" was not what was asked for. What was asked for was an actual start menu, not a button that takes you to a page full of icons. It's extremely annoying that Microsoft would deliberately choose to misunderstand this. (They couldn't be stupid enough to think that's what we really wanted.)
John Carter cost $250 m to make and brought in $280 m. Even if they spent $100 m to market it, it would have brought in much less if they hadn't marketed it, because no one would have known to go see it. The point is, if you've spent a lot of money to make it, it's really too late not to release it.
Nevertheless, Disney took a $150M write-down on their taxes due to John Carter. So something doesn't add up.
For some people. For all the moves' faults, and whatever else trekkies may think of him, Abrams put the excitement back into Trek. Bremen's trek was as exciting as an IBM board meeting. Were this not true, it would not have been necessary to reboot.
Why would they need a Windows 8 Workstation? Companies can standardize on free Start Menu programs like classic shell. From what I hear, major Computer vendors are installing Pokki for Windows 8 Start Menu since they can customize it.
Windows 8.1 brings back the start button. While it only takes you to the start screen, you can have it go to the all apps screen instead. The start screen is a full screen start menu. I removed all live tiles on mine, and pinned all programs that I launch on it.
As an aside, Yes, Windows 8.1 brings back the start button, but that was not what we were asking for. That was a classic example of the company completely misunderstanding user requirements.
What was requested, along with a lot of other things, was a return to the start menu paradigm. But it's not just the start menu. It's the hot corners and charms bar and sliding gestures, all the "features" that are inappropriate on a workstation. (and some that server 2012 has, that aren't appropriate on a server.) Rather than retrain or try to find workarounds, most companies will stick with Windows 7 and Server 2008, and ride it out until Microsoft gets a clue. Test by: Did every company jump on Vista and just grit their teeth and work through the issues, or did they stick with XP? If you don't know the answer to that, we are not going to have a productive conversation. Like many companies, my company took new PCs with Vista installed and imaged them with Windows XP. Because it was a known quantity that didn't have Vista's issues. That's what companies do. Hello??
What it comes down to is that there is no reason to migrate to Windows 8. There are many reasons not to. Therefore, there will be a very small Win8 penetration in its current form. Oh, there may be the occasional specialized app on Win8 tablets, but I suspect there will be few of those, because the ipad has had such a head start. My company issues ipads for certain applications. (As an IT person I was entitled to one. I had it for a couple weeks, and gave it back, as there was no place in my workflow for one -- it was just another device to carry.) There is no reason to suddenly switch to Surface. There just isn't. They're expensive, ugly, non-intuitive, and the execs do not like them. End of story.
So, in summary, if Microsoft wants a new Windows OS to be widely adopted in this decade (I mean that seriously -- see the current penetration of XP 12 years after introduction) then something is going to have to change. Their fastest track is to blame everything on Ballmer and come out with a version that's used and managed *identical* to Win7 (no retraining) but has the minor back-end improvements of Win8 that are actually a little attractive. Keep Metro for phones and tablets. It would be a Ballmer-esque decision to go back to the "Start" button on phones, and pretty much end Microsoft's participation (such as it is) in that market. A single GUI on every type of device (at least, the way Microsoft is trying to implement) is madness. To each type of device it's appropriate interface. Microsoft will continue to be a minor player until they understand this. Yes, they still have buttloads of money, and could survive as a fractional player for years. But is Microsoft really comfortable being a has-been in the industry? Hello, SCO called, they want their business plan back.
My understanding (which may be incorrect) is that most of their money comes from Windows, with Office a close second. But you can see where both revenue streams are at risk. They're competing against free. It's not like you can make it up in volume...
What good is it to be able to predict if the movie will flop when you have to spend $100 million making the damn thing first! Maybe you could just make the trailer, and see how well its wikipedia page does?
I think, because promoting a film is a substantial part of the total expense. I remember hearing somewhere (and can't find the stat at the moment) that John Carter cost upwards of $100M to market on top of its purported $250M budget. I'm sure Disney would like to have saved some of their marketing cost by dumping the turkey earlier.
There are tricks they can use if they know it's bad. Forgoing the critics is a sign that a movie is bad, but it also puts a stop to early bad press. However, for the tricks to work they have to know early enough to use them, and the people involved usually believe their own hype so much that only really, really bad movies get that treatment. Also, knowing that you have a potential hit that you thought was just going to be mediocre can help redirect funds to get it into more theaters to increase revenue.
Agree with the second point (recognizing a hidden gem and promote it) but I don't think stopping bad press works anymore. I don't remember the name, but just a few years ago, a movie was destroyed, for the first time, by twitter. Initial viewer backlash was intense and went viral, and the film was showing to empty theaters by the second weekend. The phenomenon has only increased since then. Point being, I don't think suppressing professional critics as a strategy to prop up the first weekend works very well anymore.
> All of these things are obvious to a casual observer. Why they aren't obvious to Microsoft is beyond my comprehension.
I don't think the decision makers at Microsoft are stupid. I think that they have other goals than the ones represented by the (very reasonable) actions you outline.
Microsoft is grimly determined to continue to make the bulk of their money via OS sales, in a time when the big players are giving away their OS. Everything is predicated on that. They are grimly determined to have one single graphical interface on every type of device. And they are grimly determined to make up in marketing the shortcomings in their business strategy.
My prediction is that by Windows 9, Metro will be an optional (and thus ultimately destined to be scrapped) feature.
Or rather, "Windows" will split into Mobile and Desktop, which is what they should have done in the first place. Simply going back to the classic interface across the board and trying to convince us "forget Mobile 6, you really do want a Start button on your phone" would be just more of the same bad decisions. The GUI is not the OS. Execs should have that tattooed on their foreheads, backwards so they can read it in the mirror.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, a start icon in the lower left is exactly what I wanted. I like the start screen, but the mouse target for launching it was way too small. 8.1 fixed that.
So... how are you enjoying the free Surface you got from the company? I'm told employees are required to be seen using it. How is that working out for you?
> Vista wasn't particularly bad. It mostly had serious bugs on launch and poor driver support. But, the system itself mainly suffered from the way the UAC worked.
Like they say, you don't get a second chance to make a first impression. By the time the initial problems were fixed, we had already decided not to deploy it. I suspect the same thing will be true of Windows 8 -- even if they fix it now, the damage has already been done.
Downloading and double clicking the installer for Classic Shell hardly constitutes beating into submission. Yes, it really is that easy.
There has never been a single operating system that I didn't have to spend some amount of time configuring to my liking. This is no different.
No, it really isn't. This still leaves you with charms, hot corners, and sliding icons. We'll stick with 7, thanks.
Name one OS that is just right out of the box and needs no tweaks. Linux always needs fiddling with (that's why you love it) and MacOS's two-finger scroll scrolls the wrong way by default.
At least with Windows 8 you can use AD to roll out suitable settings for everyone in one hit. I'm sure you can do the same thing with Linux/MacOS somehow too.
This is more than tweaks. You don't understand what "lack of control, conveyance, continuity, and context" means to people who are not computer geeks, don't have a job even remotely close to the computer industry, and only need computers to do certain business related tasks. When you're not a computer geek or Microsoft employee, you don't necessarily touch computers every day, and trying to remember which hot corner to touch or where your application is, or how to get out of a full screen Metro app, is not something they're going to remember or even want to try to figure out. This can't be fixed by using A/D to roll out settings.
However, there is a solution. And that is, to stick with Windows 7 until Microsoft abandons this crap. (Actually, we're still largely on XP, but are starting to roll out 7 on new hardware.)
To the shills bleating about people denigrating Windows 8 as "just whiners" are being a bit disingenuous. We run Windows because we have to. Companies standardize on Windows because certain applications only run there. However, we do *not* have to go out and buy whatever crapheap Microsoft grunts out, because we're up on the shallow end of the curve regarding Windows -- with all its faults and security holes, it's gotten about as good as it's going to get. We haven't had to anticipate the large collection bugfixes, paradigm fixes and interface compatibility that is the next version of Windows since XP. There is no new USB-like interface that would make us snap up 98SE as soon as it's available. There's no huge stability increase that would make us slaver for Win2000 or WinXP. Even Win7 was really just a minor improvement.
The issue, if any, is that new systems have Win8 crapped all over it, and Win8 is another one of those ill-advised attempts at "leading the industry" by producing a bad copy of what Microsoft thinks everyone else is doing. This requires reimaging at work, which is ok because we'd probably do that anyway, and I can still get Win7 through my OEM, so systems I build for friends and relatives are not affected that much. But someone buys a laptop and it has that nasty interface on it, and they bring it to me, and well, I'm afraid I have some bad news. I can put the start menu back, but all the other stuff -- the charms and hot corners and sliding gestures that can't be done on a trackpad, you're stuck with those, unless you pay for another copy of Windows.
We are at the point where we don't care about a new OS anymore, because we have actual work to do that does not entail learning the quirks of a new OS.
This goes double for servers. We still have a lot of stuff running on Server 2003, because it works and there's no reason to swap it out. Newer machines will have Server 2008, which is still ok, but we have no inclination to deal with the metro-esque misfeatures of 2012.
Whatever products Microsoft craps out, there are always a handful of people somewhere who against all reason like it. There were a handful of people who liked Microsoft Bob. A company I used to work for actually started rolling out Windows ME, based on user trials, although they realized their mistake and pulled it back a month later. I have a friend who still has a laptop running Vista, and she's fine with it, although whenever something goes wrong or needs to change, (which is annoyingly often) she always brings it to me.
So yes, I'm sure there are one or two people out there who like the retro-8bit-arcade look-and-feel that is the Metro interface. Maybe it reminds them of when they were playing Space Invaders on the cocktail table machine while sipping their wine spritzers and listening to a bad cover of "Shadow Dancing". People like a lot of things, for a lot of reasons. But to have a successful business, you need a large enough number of people liking the product to meet investor expectations. Doesn't seem likely.
Thanks to Penny Arcade I thought the same thing - however its not true. I did download the community release and you can indeed have an old school start menu again.
Only for certain rather bizarre values of "old school start menu". The icon takes you back to the start screen, which is precisely, absolutely, not the point of having a start button. You cannot change this without third party software, which, given that choice, makes Win8 a corporate non-player. Win7 will have to last us until Microsoft gets a clue.
When you're done GNU/Linux is here for you to upgrade to.
The only reason I'm still on Windows is that the Adobe suite runs on it. Adobe, port to Linux!
And thus, a new low is reached for Microsoft shills.
> If you know, I don't sit on my ass and whine like a spoiled brat who can't take any initiative.
You don't get it. (1) Yes I can fix it. But why should I buy something that I need to beat into submission, when what I have works fine? (2) Yes I can fix it, but the 10,000+ users in my company, most of whom have other jobs than being a computer geek, would struggle with it, and I'd lose my job if I foisted that off on them.
> It appears that Microsoft are responding to the needs of their customers.
Let's not confuse the two -- an icon in the lower left corner that takes one to the "start screen" was not what was asked for. What was asked for was an actual start menu, not a button that takes you to a page full of icons. It's extremely annoying that Microsoft would deliberately choose to misunderstand this. (They couldn't be stupid enough to think that's what we really wanted.)
John Carter cost $250 m to make and brought in $280 m. Even if they spent $100 m to market it, it would have brought in much less if they hadn't marketed it, because no one would have known to go see it. The point is, if you've spent a lot of money to make it, it's really too late not to release it.
Nevertheless, Disney took a $150M write-down on their taxes due to John Carter. So something doesn't add up.
For some people. For all the moves' faults, and whatever else trekkies may think of him, Abrams put the excitement back into Trek. Bremen's trek was as exciting as an IBM board meeting. Were this not true, it would not have been necessary to reboot.
Why would they need a Windows 8 Workstation? Companies can standardize on free Start Menu programs like classic shell. From what I hear, major Computer vendors are installing Pokki for Windows 8 Start Menu since they can customize it.
Windows 8.1 brings back the start button. While it only takes you to the start screen, you can have it go to the all apps screen instead. The start screen is a full screen start menu. I removed all live tiles on mine, and pinned all programs that I launch on it.
As an aside, Yes, Windows 8.1 brings back the start button, but that was not what we were asking for. That was a classic example of the company completely misunderstanding user requirements.
What was requested, along with a lot of other things, was a return to the start menu paradigm. But it's not just the start menu. It's the hot corners and charms bar and sliding gestures, all the "features" that are inappropriate on a workstation. (and some that server 2012 has, that aren't appropriate on a server.) Rather than retrain or try to find workarounds, most companies will stick with Windows 7 and Server 2008, and ride it out until Microsoft gets a clue. Test by: Did every company jump on Vista and just grit their teeth and work through the issues, or did they stick with XP? If you don't know the answer to that, we are not going to have a productive conversation. Like many companies, my company took new PCs with Vista installed and imaged them with Windows XP. Because it was a known quantity that didn't have Vista's issues. That's what companies do. Hello??
What it comes down to is that there is no reason to migrate to Windows 8. There are many reasons not to. Therefore, there will be a very small Win8 penetration in its current form. Oh, there may be the occasional specialized app on Win8 tablets, but I suspect there will be few of those, because the ipad has had such a head start. My company issues ipads for certain applications. (As an IT person I was entitled to one. I had it for a couple weeks, and gave it back, as there was no place in my workflow for one -- it was just another device to carry.) There is no reason to suddenly switch to Surface. There just isn't. They're expensive, ugly, non-intuitive, and the execs do not like them. End of story.
So, in summary, if Microsoft wants a new Windows OS to be widely adopted in this decade (I mean that seriously -- see the current penetration of XP 12 years after introduction) then something is going to have to change. Their fastest track is to blame everything on Ballmer and come out with a version that's used and managed *identical* to Win7 (no retraining) but has the minor back-end improvements of Win8 that are actually a little attractive. Keep Metro for phones and tablets. It would be a Ballmer-esque decision to go back to the "Start" button on phones, and pretty much end Microsoft's participation (such as it is) in that market. A single GUI on every type of device (at least, the way Microsoft is trying to implement) is madness. To each type of device it's appropriate interface. Microsoft will continue to be a minor player until they understand this. Yes, they still have buttloads of money, and could survive as a fractional player for years. But is Microsoft really comfortable being a has-been in the industry? Hello, SCO called, they want their business plan back.
My understanding (which may be incorrect) is that most of their money comes from Windows, with Office a close second. But you can see where both revenue streams are at risk. They're competing against free. It's not like you can make it up in volume...
That works.
What good is it to be able to predict if the movie will flop when you have to spend $100 million making the damn thing first! Maybe you could just make the trailer, and see how well its wikipedia page does?
I think, because promoting a film is a substantial part of the total expense. I remember hearing somewhere (and can't find the stat at the moment) that John Carter cost upwards of $100M to market on top of its purported $250M budget. I'm sure Disney would like to have saved some of their marketing cost by dumping the turkey earlier.
There are tricks they can use if they know it's bad. Forgoing the critics is a sign that a movie is bad, but it also puts a stop to early bad press. However, for the tricks to work they have to know early enough to use them, and the people involved usually believe their own hype so much that only really, really bad movies get that treatment. Also, knowing that you have a potential hit that you thought was just going to be mediocre can help redirect funds to get it into more theaters to increase revenue.
Agree with the second point (recognizing a hidden gem and promote it) but I don't think stopping bad press works anymore. I don't remember the name, but just a few years ago, a movie was destroyed, for the first time, by twitter. Initial viewer backlash was intense and went viral, and the film was showing to empty theaters by the second weekend. The phenomenon has only increased since then. Point being, I don't think suppressing professional critics as a strategy to prop up the first weekend works very well anymore.
Waterworld.
Unfortunate example.
> All of these things are obvious to a casual observer. Why they aren't obvious to Microsoft is beyond my comprehension.
I don't think the decision makers at Microsoft are stupid. I think that they have other goals than the ones represented by the (very reasonable) actions you outline.
Microsoft is grimly determined to continue to make the bulk of their money via OS sales, in a time when the big players are giving away their OS. Everything is predicated on that. They are grimly determined to have one single graphical interface on every type of device. And they are grimly determined to make up in marketing the shortcomings in their business strategy.
My prediction is that by Windows 9, Metro will be an optional (and thus ultimately destined to be scrapped) feature.
Or rather, "Windows" will split into Mobile and Desktop, which is what they should have done in the first place. Simply going back to the classic interface across the board and trying to convince us "forget Mobile 6, you really do want a Start button on your phone" would be just more of the same bad decisions. The GUI is not the OS. Execs should have that tattooed on their foreheads, backwards so they can read it in the mirror.
> The new Metro UI is a game changer for Windows
True, but probably not in the way you meant.
This. Ballmer had one job: don't fuck up Windows.
He failed at the modest task which was his charge.
Twice.
Its not, our focus is on canon. I couldnt give a shit who was in a new star trek series as long as it followed canon.
Even if it's boring as snot?