VS2012's UI is pretty awful, which is their stab at Metrofying their dev tools.

All caps menus? Check!


shiatty icon? Check! I call this "Visual Studio: Purple Bowtie Edition"


Do you want to copy and paste your error messages from a Unit Test into a search engine? Too farking bad!


You can't select that text to copy it.

I'm also really fond of this one, where the final step marking the job as complete is indented under the other lines, but doesn't merit a little check to indicate it's complete.


It's sad, because VS2012 is generally a big improvement. But the UI is a disaster. I have a sense that it will be the same for Windows 8 overall. Generally better, but with a disaster of a UI.

Charles_Nelson_Reilly: gingerjet: Consistency and predictability are hallmarks of interface design and Microsoft has basically thrown all that out the window with these idiotic designs.

This, this, this! Microsoft will not be happy until the OS and Office completely randomize their UI every time the machine is started.

What bothers and stresses me about it is that the office interface is so different than in 2003, that my skills at excel are hampered by it. I feel I have to buy the latest office every time for my home PC to study it for future employment, because when you're an accountant these stupid agencies make you take excel tests. However, I have yet to see anyone using 2007 or 2010 in the workplace. I guess some IT people figured out that MS didn't add any features, and used the ribbon to pull the wool over the customer's eyes.

ryarger: People simply won't adopt a completely new metaphor like this. Windows 95 is doomed from the start, and an Amiga is now president.

From Win95 onwards through Win7, people understood that everything revolved around the Start button. When Win95 came out, their commercials highlighted the Start button, even using The Rolling Stones "Start Me Up". Want to launch a program? Start -> Programs. Want to change a computer setting? Start -> Settings -> Control Panel. Want to set up a printer? Start -> Settings -> Printers.

Did Win95 have its issues? Yes, but that happens when you change architectures, as Win95 did going to 32-bit from Win 3.1's 16-bit. But, Win95 also made it easier for people to access the Internet as it had a built-in TCP stack. It didn't come preinstalled, but it was available to be installed and you didn't have to mess with Trumpet Winsock's settings. Win95 also introduced 'Plug-and-play', which means you didn't have to mess with IRQ and memory address settings. 'Plug-and-play' was buggy at first (having the nickname 'Plug-and-pray'), but it got better. Now, you just plug in a device, boot the machine, install the drivers and you're set. Things introduced in Win95 are things people expect today when they buy a Windows based computer.

With Windows 8, to find a program to launch, you need to right-clock and choose 'All Programs' from the Metro Start screen. Change a computer setting? You have to hover on the right side of the screen and choose 'Settings'. It's disjointed and one thing people won't like is having to learn all how to use their computers all over again. Other than Metro, there really isn't anything groundbreaking. There are no new architectures, nothing that really says "Hey, you need to get this."

I hope that Windows 8 hides the whole file name by default instead of just hiding the extension. That would be revolutionary.

Don't like it? Get a Mac

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: UseUrHeadFred
Nevertheless, it begs the question:

This phrase doesn't mean what you think it means*. Please avoid using it.

/* You see what I did there because what I did there; you saw it.

The two uses are distinct, purposeful and never going to be confused. This is like people freaking out about wood-cutting tools and the past tense of "to see." Relax

mamoru: dennysgod: Win7 is most certainly an improvement over XP, Win7 makes XP look like Win98r2

I agree. So far, Win7 is the best Windows ever made. It's pretty much outstanding. And this is coming from a Mac user (on a MacBook Pro, I dual boot using MacOS for work and general use and Win7 for gaming).

Flint Ironstag: Why should I change? XP runs all the programmes I want, and that's all I want an OS to do.

So you can use more than 3GB of RAM? If you don't have that much, then it won't affect you, but this was the main driving force that got me to upgrade from XP to 7. And I'm glad I did. 7 had a lot of little things that it seems to do better than XP, and overall things seem more stable and at least as fast if not faster. Just my experience, though.

Also remember that XP has lost it's support from Microsoft and software developers who now recognize that Vista/7 is what a majority of people have and will have for the next decade.

And if you're going the x64 route (which you should, at least in my opinion) then WinXP 64 is the last thing you should try. That was buggy as hell and no one supported it.

Arguing that XP should only be used because no one supports an OS that came out 25-30 years ago anymore is sad. Technology changes and the interfacing and software to run it has to change too, that's why you don't see Windows 95 natively support 64 bit computing because that wasn't a thing for consumer based computing back then. Hell, it wasn't even thought of for consumer based computing. Sure there may be unnecessary frills in an OS like 7 but you also get some fantastic improvements in built in programs as well, like the windows Defrag (which actually can do shiat now, unlike the XP version) or Microsoft Security (which was a joke 10 years ago).

/god, I hope you were a troll, Flint

dennysgod: Win7 is most certainly an improvement over XP, Win7 makes XP look like Win98r2

I agree. So far, Win7 is the best Windows ever made. It's pretty much outstanding. And this is coming from a Mac user (on a MacBook Pro, I dual boot using MacOS for work and general use and Win7 for gaming).

Flint Ironstag: Why should I change? XP runs all the programmes I want, and that's all I want an OS to do.

So you can use more than 3GB of RAM? If you don't have that much, then it won't affect you, but this was the main driving force that got me to upgrade from XP to 7. And I'm glad I did. 7 had a lot of little things that it seems to do better than XP, and overall things seem more stable and at least as fast if not faster. Just my experience, though.

I'm still on XP. Tried 7 for a while, but went back to XP.

Why should I change? XP runs all the programmes I want, and that's all I want an OS to do.

A scathing article from that bastion of design, ZDNet.

RandomAxe: Windows' general design has been going downhill since 3.11, and that one wasn't terrific, either.

I've stuck with XP because XP was actually an improvement over its immediate predecessors. Expecting any later version to be an improvement on XP is an act of absurd optimism, and I'm rarely absurd and optimistic at the same time.

The Program Manager from Windows 3.1 was horrible. Windows 95 was one of the best things they ever did from a UI standpoint, which is why it has worked so well and been copied by almost everyone else for nearly two decades. Now they want to throw all that away just to try and jump into the tablet market where they'll be crushed by Apple.

Windows' general design has been going downhill since 3.11, and that one wasn't terrific, either.

I've stuck with XP because XP was actually an improvement over its immediate predecessors. Expecting any later version to be an improvement on XP is an act of absurd optimism, and I'm rarely absurd and optimistic at the same time.

cman: Hopefully Windows 8 will be such a flop that companies that make OSes stop this bullshiat mobile on desktop philosophy.

fark Windows 8, fark GNOME 3, fark Unity

I agree. And I must say, I'm digging Xfce lately. It'd been a while since Id seen it, and it's come along nicely. If Unity did one thing for me, it was getting me to come across a great alternative.

Hopefully Windows 8 will be such a flop that companies that make OSes stop this bullshiat mobile on desktop philosophy.

fark Windows 8, fark GNOME 3, fark Unity

BunkyBrewman: ...as does Windows 8... for anything with a keyboard.

Apparently, it sucks on everything:

Not only did someone at Microsoft think that it was a good idea to make Metro the primary user interface in Windows 8, but they also decided to destroy the 'classic' user interface experience too by also 'Ribbonizing' most of the applications. These Ribbon toolbars are packed with small user elements and are fiddly to use with a mouse, and even more fiddly - at times bordering on impossible to use - when driven with a finger.

The Ribbon toolbars, which we first saw in Office 2007, weren't developed with touch in mind, but it appears that Microsoft has decided to adopt them as a cheap alternative to spreading the Metro user interface across the whole of Windows 8. Not only do they not work well on touch systems, they're also terribly cluttered and confusing.

If you've used Windows Phone then the interface feel[sic] familiar.

Yes all 4 of you.

As someone who hates cluttered screens, this seems like it is going to drive me nuts. Hell even my iPad has everything moved around so I only see 4 icons on the screen at once.

FormlessOne: Your blog sucks.

...as does Windows 8... for anything with a keyboard.