If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   9 Reasons to be excited by Windows 9. Not listed: the fact that it isn't Windows 8. Warning: Slideshow   (money.cnn.com) divider line 131
    More: Stupid, Windows, Microsoft OneDrive, free space, operating systems, clouds  
•       •       •

3644 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Sep 2014 at 11:03 PM (2 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



131 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-09-04 08:11:06 PM
Deslided

/why now is CNN less than $4,600?
 
2014-09-04 08:15:20 PM
Why would an os make me excited?
 
2014-09-04 08:17:22 PM

DanZero: Deslided

/why now is CNN less than $4,600?


i.imgur.com
 
2014-09-04 08:23:59 PM
Finally got my first windows 8.1 PC a few weeks ago after avoiding it like the plague all this time.  Can't really understand what all the hate is about.  Yeah they jacked up the start menu, "Store Apps" are an absolute waste of time, they've cranked up the horrible UAC security garbage even tighter than before, and there seems to be no way to get rid of that giant clock that pops up whenever I put my mouse cursor in the wrong place, but the start screen is pretty handy once you unfarkulate it and everything else seems more or less the same.

It's still a billion times better than Ubuntu.
 
2014-09-04 09:06:13 PM
So moving OS functionality to the cloud is a reason to be excited about Win9?

Um so all those times when the internet is down we're screwed?  What about in the Corporate environment when they might not want to open everything up to the internet like that?
 
2014-09-04 09:09:08 PM

dookdookdook: Can't really understand what all the hate is about. Yeah they jacked up the start menu, "Store Apps" are an absolute waste of time, they've cranked up the horrible UAC security garbage even tighter than before


Sounds to me like you understand exactly what the hate is about. Windows 7's start menu doesn't take an entire monitor, doesn't try to force me into Microsoft's ecosphere, and doesn't harass me with UAC the way Vista & 8 do. Don't forget the fact that using apps in the tile interface is incompatible with the legacy apps, so you're still switching around. I have 1600x1200 resolution montors and they go up to 3840x2160. I don't need anything full-screen, but Windows 8 thinks I want everything full-screen.

The underlying Windows 8 stuff can be a performance upgrade, but they really went full retard with forcing folks into the user interface. All they had to do was give you an install option: "Tablet [Yes/No]" and give me Aero if I want it instead of the flat Windows 8 Desktop.

Now the list, since deslide didn't work right:
9. Return of the Start Menu **
8. Back to the Desktop        **
7. Cortana
6. Bye, by Charms              **
5. Windows for tablet apps
4. Interactive live tiles
3. Better power management
2. Cloud based OS
1. Notification center

3 of the 9 are pretty much exactly the fact that it isn't Windows 8. And did MS learn nothing from the recent iCloud hack? I don't want my personal stuff in the cloud.
 
2014-09-04 09:14:49 PM

avalanche: DanZero: Deslided

/why now is CNN less than $4,600?

[i.imgur.com image 684x412]


But why did the logo change in the first place? Is Fark fighting with CNN?
 
2014-09-04 09:14:59 PM
Windows has the same problem Star Trek movies do. Only every other one is any good.
 
2014-09-04 09:53:28 PM

Gig103: dookdookdook: Can't really understand what all the hate is about. Yeah they jacked up the start menu, "Store Apps" are an absolute waste of time, they've cranked up the horrible UAC security garbage even tighter than before

Sounds to me like you understand exactly what the hate is about. Windows 7's start menu doesn't take an entire monitor, doesn't try to force me into Microsoft's ecosphere, and doesn't harass me with UAC the way Vista & 8 do. Don't forget the fact that using apps in the tile interface is incompatible with the legacy apps, so you're still switching around. I have 1600x1200 resolution montors and they go up to 3840x2160. I don't need anything full-screen, but Windows 8 thinks I want everything full-screen.

The underlying Windows 8 stuff can be a performance upgrade, but they really went full retard with forcing folks into the user interface. All they had to do was give you an install option: "Tablet [Yes/No]" and give me Aero if I want it instead of the flat Windows 8 Desktop.

Now the list, since deslide didn't work right:
9. Return of the Start Menu **
8. Back to the Desktop        **
7. Cortana
6. Bye, by Charms              **
5. Windows for tablet apps
4. Interactive live tiles
3. Better power management
2. Cloud based OS
1. Notification center

3 of the 9 are pretty much exactly the fact that it isn't Windows 8. And did MS learn nothing from the recent iCloud hack? I don't want my personal stuff in the cloud.


The big thing I don't understand about the Start Screen hate is that people seem to have an issue with it being full-screen.  Why?

When you use the start menu, it only takes up part of the screen, but your entire focus is on that small part of the screen while you do whatever you're doing.  With the Start Screen it gives you the entire screen to do whatever you want to do, and after you do it, you go right back to your desktop where you left off (unless you start a metro app, in which case you go into metro-land, but that's a conscious choice).

I've grown to prefer the Start Screen to the old Start Menu, and I hope Windows 9 allows me to keep it on my desktop.

The interactive live tiles sound very useful, they're great on Windows Phone, so expanding them to the desktop makes sense.

Allowing metro apps to run windowed is also smart.  There are a few very good metro apps - such as the Xbox Music app, it would be handy to run that windowed instead of having to switch back and forth from the desktop to metro-land to make changes.

I'm not sure if I like the idea of parts of the OS living in the cloud - what happens if I don't have internet access?  Hard drive space is cheap, so hopefully there's an option to just do a full local install.

As far as the cloud integration goes for other files, it's pretty damn useful.  You don't have to put anything that you don't want 'in the cloud', but I use it for OneNote, Outlook, and Xbox Music, which works very well.  I wouldn't want sensitive documents out there, but there's nothing about Windows 8, and I'm assuming Windows 9, that forces me to do that.
 
2014-09-04 09:54:30 PM
Move it to the Cloud!!!!

Lets replace $20 worth of flash and $10 worth of CPU with $20 per month forever to a telco.

No thanks!

/but the cloud has kept MY pictures safe
 
2014-09-04 10:04:24 PM
Come on guys, my Windows 7 hardware is starting to wear out. I need a 17" laptop with a nice 10 key, none of this chicklet crap. You don't need a touch screen to shove spreadsheet entries around, I just need to be able to see an OpenOffice spreadsheet and the output of a web tool at the same time.
 
2014-09-04 10:17:20 PM

TuteTibiImperes: When you use the start menu, it only takes up part of the screen, but your entire focus is on that small part of the screen while you do whatever you're doing. With the Start Screen it gives you the entire screen to do whatever you want to do, and after you do it, you go right back to your desktop where you left off (unless you start a metro app, in which case you go into metro-land, but that's a conscious choice).


Take that and try to explain it to a bunch of people that still call their desktop their 'screensaver'.  They're computer illiterate and they can barely figure out Win7 to begin with, and they've worked damn hard to have the limited skills that they already have.  Now go and totally change, as far as they are concerned, the UI, and they are completely, totally, absolutely lost.  Game over. You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.

MS wants to make changes to the OS? That's cool. Do it slowly. Incrementally. Give people the option to have both so they can discover the new without totally farking them up.  They can explore. Ram the new OS down their throats and people, the 'screensavers' who are probably the bulk of your users, are going to revolt.
 
2014-09-04 11:09:41 PM

Demetrius: TuteTibiImperes: When you use the start menu, it only takes up part of the screen, but your entire focus is on that small part of the screen while you do whatever you're doing. With the Start Screen it gives you the entire screen to do whatever you want to do, and after you do it, you go right back to your desktop where you left off (unless you start a metro app, in which case you go into metro-land, but that's a conscious choice).

Take that and try to explain it to a bunch of people that still call their desktop their 'screensaver'.  They're computer illiterate and they can barely figure out Win7 to begin with, and they've worked damn hard to have the limited skills that they already have.  Now go and totally change, as far as they are concerned, the UI, and they are completely, totally, absolutely lost.  Game over. You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.

MS wants to make changes to the OS? That's cool. Do it slowly. Incrementally. Give people the option to have both so they can discover the new without totally farking them up.  They can explore. Ram the new OS down their throats and people, the 'screensavers' who are probably the bulk of your users, are going to revolt.


I liked the screensavers, it was a good show.
 
2014-09-04 11:17:07 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Why would an os make me excited?


Why would an OS from MS make me exited? Seriously, I've lost all faith in them. They simply can't do anything right at this point. The XBONE is the last thing I'll ever buy from MS if I can help it.

I have a couple of popular apps on iTunes, Amazon and Google Play. I bought a Windows laptop with 8.1 and a MS tablet. I was able to get my app running but working on Windows was just so unpleasant, I abandoned it.  I only have some much time in my life and I'll be damn if I waste it fighting with Windows.  I don't expect 9 to be much better.

/oh yea, fark charms
// fark charms hard
 
2014-09-04 11:18:09 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The big thing I don't understand about the Start Screen hate is that people seem to have an issue with it being full-screen. Why?


art.penny-arcade.com
 
2014-09-04 11:22:59 PM

DON.MAC: Lets replace $20 worth of flash and $10 worth of CPU with $20 per month forever to a telco.


Amen. Cloud storage has some purpose (sharing files across remote offices, or as a tertiary backup solution (cannot stress that part enough*)), but even when it comes to mobile devices, the less streaming you rely on, the better. Another reason why I won't get a phone that doesn't allow for expandable storage. If these rumors are true, it would appear that MS didn't learn from the XBO "always online" fiasco. Having parts of your operating system rely on cloud computing is a bad idea for anyone with data caps, a slow connection, or no internet at all. Also, not being able to do something locally using local resources because the operating system decided to let MS servers process the application, and internet lag slowed down the process would make that computer end up with my fist through it extremely quickly. Even worse if local files that should use local resources decided to not work should there be an internet outage.

*a full PC backup can be friggin' huge, and if you want a straight up-to-date copy of your system and files, have fun uploading hundreds of gigs, if not a few terabytes, and wait to download that when/if your system shiats the bed. Better to have two physically separate drives in case one also craps out, and cloud-based backups as a 3rd backup but only for necessary files. Shiat, even with Comcast's "no data cap" BS they spout, if I wanted to upload my full system backup and files all in one hit, they would have my permanently blacklisted.
 
2014-09-04 11:24:26 PM

Lsherm: avalanche: DanZero: Deslided

/why now is CNN less than $4,600?

[i.imgur.com image 684x412]

But why did the logo change in the first place? Is Fark fighting with CNN?


Something about CNN biatching over copyrights on the logo, near as I can tell. Fark doesn't seem to have said anything about it that I could find, which is kinda odd.
 
2014-09-04 11:25:49 PM
what's a windows 8?
seriously, everyone skips the even number POS OS from windows ...
next
 
2014-09-04 11:30:40 PM
I got my mum a windows 8 computer and figuring out basic stuff is difficult. So much is hidden and counter intuitive. I don't know what the idea was. If it were smartly designed my mum would be able to use it easily, rather than myself not even being able to figure it out.

Also PCs are the real deal and tablets are closer to toys, so making the PC into a tablet feels like the wrong way to go.


Also Demetrius is totally on the money
 
2014-09-04 11:44:54 PM
I just spent 45 minutes trying to get my Windows 8 system to do what would have taken me 5 minutes previously, so I'm getting a kick out of... no, I'm not -  I'm actually pretty pissed off.  And i'm usually a pretty patient person.

Just when I thought I had the whole thing configured to work the way I want it -- BAM!  It screws me over again!  I just want the blasted thing to do what I tell it to do, not do what it thinks I should be doing.  Why should I spend half my time searching the internet trying to find a workaround to make something work on their "new and improved" system?
 
2014-09-04 11:45:43 PM

namatad: what's a windows 8?
seriously, everyone skips the even number POS OS from windows ...
next


You're lucky you managed to escape it. I managed to kill my Windows 7 machine a few months ago and found myself forced to deal with the multitude of annoyances of Windows 8.

When Win9 comes out, I'm going to have a hard time waiting for the first big round of patches. Do they still call it a service pack? Whatever. Even odd number OS have to go through some time in public hands so the major glitches work out.
 
2014-09-04 11:47:50 PM
Nothing wrong with 8.1 - increased framerates in games, can't recall any crashes, and with my solid state drive, it boots in under 10 seconds.

...but yes, 8.0 sucked.
 
2014-09-04 11:50:22 PM

Demetrius: TuteTibiImperes: When you use the start menu, it only takes up part of the screen, but your entire focus is on that small part of the screen while you do whatever you're doing. With the Start Screen it gives you the entire screen to do whatever you want to do, and after you do it, you go right back to your desktop where you left off (unless you start a metro app, in which case you go into metro-land, but that's a conscious choice).

Take that and try to explain it to a bunch of people that still call their desktop their 'screensaver'.  They're computer illiterate and they can barely figure out Win7 to begin with, and they've worked damn hard to have the limited skills that they already have.  Now go and totally change, as far as they are concerned, the UI, and they are completely, totally, absolutely lost.  Game over. You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.

MS wants to make changes to the OS? That's cool. Do it slowly. Incrementally. Give people the option to have both so they can discover the new without totally farking them up.  They can explore. Ram the new OS down their throats and people, the 'screensavers' who are probably the bulk of your users, are going to revolt.


My cousin thought his W8 laptop both had W7(Desktop) and W8(Start page) as two OS's. Was funny telling him it was only W8.
 
2014-09-04 11:58:40 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The big thing I don't understand about the Start Screen hate is that people seem to have an issue with it being full-screen.  Why?


Personally, I hate the start screen for two reasons.
The first is the same reason I hate the Office ribbon: a menu system will always be more efficient than a tile based system in terms of clicks and mouse movements. And, inefficiency is exacerbated by it being full screen. In my opinion a hierarchical menu also makes more logical sense than a tile systen. Perhaps that's my own inertia, but I doubt it.
Second, the full screen thing. It's disruptive to go from the desktop or a browser window or whatever to an opaque full screen interface when all I want to do is quickly pull up a control panel or my documents folder or whatever. If Diablo's inventory screen opened fullscreen people would call it godawful design.
Anyway, YMMV.
/ Mac OS has a few very similar utilities in the dashboard for widgets and the launchpad which is an iOS like screen you can use to open apps. Both are full screen touch inspired interfaces which I care for not at all. The difference is I haven't even accidentally encountered either in months. Meanwhile, Windows keeps insisting on sending me to the Metro interface without my consent. If I open a video or a picture, I'm there. I push the windows key by accident, I'm there. Etc.
// I don't use Windows full time, so I can't really be bothered to optimize it.
 
2014-09-05 12:11:14 AM

nigeman: Also PCs are the real deal and tablets are closer to toys, so making the PC into a tablet feels like the wrong way to go.


Well, Windows 8 works pretty well on something like the newest Surface, which has the power of a full PC (albeit with a weak GPU) in a tablet form factor.
 
2014-09-05 12:15:57 AM

TeamEd: TuteTibiImperes: The big thing I don't understand about the Start Screen hate is that people seem to have an issue with it being full-screen.  Why?

Personally, I hate the start screen for two reasons.
The first is the same reason I hate the Office ribbon: a menu system will always be more efficient than a tile based system in terms of clicks and mouse movements. And, inefficiency is exacerbated by it being full screen. In my opinion a hierarchical menu also makes more logical sense than a tile systen. Perhaps that's my own inertia, but I doubt it.
Second, the full screen thing. It's disruptive to go from the desktop or a browser window or whatever to an opaque full screen interface when all I want to do is quickly pull up a control panel or my documents folder or whatever. If Diablo's inventory screen opened fullscreen people would call it godawful design.
Anyway, YMMV.
/ Mac OS has a few very similar utilities in the dashboard for widgets and the launchpad which is an iOS like screen you can use to open apps. Both are full screen touch inspired interfaces which I care for not at all. The difference is I haven't even accidentally encountered either in months. Meanwhile, Windows keeps insisting on sending me to the Metro interface without my consent. If I open a video or a picture, I'm there. I push the windows key by accident, I'm there. Etc.
// I don't use Windows full time, so I can't really be bothered to optimize it.


I'll give you that associating common file types with metro apps out of the box on desktop machines was a mistake.  It doesn't take long to download desktop applications to open the same file types and change the file associations, at least not if you use Windows primarily.

The Start Screen is similarly pretty user friendly once you've taken the time to optimize it.  You can group and arrange your shortcuts however you like, which makes it easy to quickly navigate to what you want.  You can also pin the most commonly used programs right to the taskbar, and instances of that program will launch from behind that taskbar icon, eliminating the mass of tabs that plagued past versions of Windows.

In terms of efficiency, hitting the Windows key and clicking on the tile for the program you want is quicker than going through multiple layers of a hierarchal menu.  Now, you can organize the Start Menu as well of course, but if you're going to take the time to do that, you can take the time to do it to the start screen.

Still, MS is bringing the menu back for those that want it.  I think the resistance to the Start Screen was overblown, and having embraced the design decisions in Windows 8 and having learned to appreciate them, I plan on setting it to use the Start Screen once I install 9 if it lets me.

The other changes seem solid to me - I've never used the 'charms bar' for anything, but I haven't had the problem of it randomly popping up either, I won't miss it if it's gone, but I don't ever notice that it exists now.  Allowing metro apps to run in windows on the desktop makes a lot of sense, and I'll use that functionality.

I doubt I'll use Cortana, mostly because I don't have a microphone attached to my PC, but if it gets more people to give Windows Phone a shot, it's a good move.

I'm ambivalent about a notifications center.  One of the things that bugs me about Android is how it has that busy little bar at the top constantly notifying me about things.
 
2014-09-05 12:20:35 AM
More like Windows NEIN, mirite?
 
2014-09-05 12:24:44 AM
Look, 8 and the debacle around it is what got Ballmer bounced and his entire team eventually canned.

There are SOME folks at MS that realize that, at the core, Microsoft has market dominance and more money than god for three reasons:

1.) Enterprise clients. Servers and workstations, meaning group policy, active directory, and control to admins

2.) OEM sales via mass marketing and deals with the manufacturers garunteeing driver support. Dell and HP, ATI and nVidia, EMC and Corsair, etc. You buy a box, there's a certain set of standards....you buy an off the shelf video card, download some drivers, and shiat works. RAM from any manufacturer can be used to upgrade if you follow small guidelines (i.e. pin numbers, voltages, etc)

3.) Users that will use what is put in front of them, be productive both at home and at work, and when that one stops working, *they go buy another without question*.


8 and the UI being ported to 'all platforms' farked up every one of these. The new management team has at least some idea that these three items need to be preserved *at all costs or Microsoft will fall*. That is not hyperbole.

If Threshold and the eventual 9 get back to these and essentially return to:

1.) A stable, fully controllable and customizable desktop client that admins and businesses can make do as they wish and secure, via group policy and AD and run in a domain environment.

2.) A couple of OEM type releases that are at different, simple price metrics (they failed badly at simple with vista and later) for end home users to also make and use.

3.) A UI *not designed to be on all things*. I cannot stress this enough.

To expand on 3...the UI cannot be all things on all devices because the environments are simple too disparate for our current programming languages to adapt to. A UI for a 4 by 3 touchscreen with tiles and gestures *will not work on three 29" HD screens four feet away from your fact with a mouse and keyboard period*.
Also, a normal UI for a 4 inch touchscreen is a horrible, terrible, and I mean dreadful UI for trying to manage a server farm that is currently running 100 virtualized servers included a primary and backup DAG that happen to be your enterprise email and messaging infrastructure because you're forcing all that into a shiatty IE window that *in and of itself is a badly coded security threat*.

If they continue to try and unity-ize the UI, Microsoft will choose the path of destruction.

I'm pretty sure the current team is aware of this.

We'll see what the 'Threshold' beta 9 set looks like.

They must be aware that tablets, phones, and such are going to take SOME of the enterprise marketshare. They must also realize that to survive long term, they have to let go of some of that market share.

Going from 90% to 80% is simply a smaller mountain of gold upon which to rub your stockholders genitals. If you don't go to a smaller market share by returning to what works...you will lose much more than that 10% as you destroy yourself trying to be the end all, be all and self destruct. 8 showed them this. 9 will be their chance to show us if they learned.
 
2014-09-05 12:27:16 AM

TuteTibiImperes: The big thing I don't understand about the Start Screen hate is that people seem to have an issue with it being full-screen. Why?

When you use the start menu, it only takes up part of the screen, but your entire focus is on that small part of the screen while you do whatever you're doing. With the Start Screen it gives you the entire screen to do whatever you want to do, and after you do it, you go right back to your desktop where you left off (unless you start a metro app, in which case you go into metro-land, but that's a conscious choice).


The problem is that not everyone focuses as exclusively on that.  In some cases certain apps you need to keep an eye on while you browse for another program to run, e.g. video rendering, installing a program, or maybe looking at an online help page telling you what menus to navigate to.  Unless you have a second monitor, you can't do that in Windows 8.

Beyond that though, it's jarring and breaks concentration.  Having a small menu that comes up is a lot less disruptive than one which takes over the entire screen, and won't distract you from what you were doing.

The other issue though is for people who use high res monitors.  On a 1280x1024 monitor it isn't SO bad.  On even a 1080p monitor that ISN'T a small tablet?  Yeah, that's overwhelming to say the least.  You spend way more time trying to find where the one tile you want is on your entire massive massive monitor than you would on a relatively small vertically arranged list that takes up a small corner of it.

Bottom line though: computer users are picky.  We get into habits and we don't like to be pushed out of them too fast or without good reason.  The Start Menu -> Start Screen change was too fast AND for no damn good reason (on desktop anyway), so it really rubbed people the wrong way.  That's why you see such a visceral reaction to it, rather than a more measured "no really, this isn't very good" response.
 
2014-09-05 12:32:26 AM

TuteTibiImperes: In terms of efficiency, hitting the Windows key and clicking on the tile for the program you want is quicker than going through multiple layers of a hierarchal menu.


Again, YMMV, but I don't know how that can possibly true. The start screen is passable for your most common apps, but then the distance from the start button to the most commonly used programs is a mere mouse swipe the length of about one tile in one direction, up. To hit the start button and open Chrome is essentially a single unobtrusive gesture. That's one or at most two clicks for my top programs. Most tiles are much further away in terms of screen-estate, and I have to move my mouse in an arbitrary direction to find them.
Plus, and this is the key frustration I have with the start screen from an efficiency standpoint, every other application or key function available on my computer is available from the start menu in the same menu structure. Control panels, documents, downloads, obscure programs, search and login and shutdown options are all within a short distance and one or two mouse clicks. Meanwhile the Metro screen requires me to use search functions and my keyboard to get anywhere even slightly unusual.
 
2014-09-05 12:36:03 AM

TeamEd: a menu system will always be more efficient than a tile based system in terms of clicks and mouse movements.


If you're always using a mouse, maybe.  However, it's much more efficient to use a touch-optimized interface with a mouse than it is to use a mouse-optimized interface with touch.

The overall design of Windows 8 started from a good idea - an interface that would work regardless of your input methods, because there is such a variety and the lines are blurring between what once were different categories of devices.  You can use a mouse on a tablet, or a touch screen on a desktop.  On my Surface, I might use the mouse, the trackpad, my fingers, the keyboard, and the stylus in rapid succession, or even more than one at a time.

Eventually, I expect that touch-enabled monitors will be the norm, and our older 'untouchable' monitors will fade away like the CRT.  Seamlessly transitioning between different input methods is a key requirement in these kinds of cases - or the hybrid laptop/tablet devices like the Surface is today.  Windows 8 isn't perfect, but it's a step in that direction.
 
FNG [TotalFark]
2014-09-05 12:39:18 AM
Never trust a third party, ie a "cloud", to care for and protect your personal and professional information.

Also, a cloud based service is only as good, as it can be, as your network connectivity.

I have excellent connectivity on every device in my house but I still need to get work done when cable goes out. And primarily its a function of security and network reliability.
 
2014-09-05 12:41:50 AM

TuteTibiImperes: The big thing I don't understand about the Start Screen hate is that people seem to have an issue with it being full-screen. Why?


I can only speak for myself, and I'm probably the oddball case not the norm, but I do not place all my focus on the start button in Windows 7. I hit the Windows key and type in whatever i want, and hit enter. The search is quick enough that I find it faster to bring up apps than looking for the actual shortcut by hand.

I will say that the lack of integration between Metro apps and legacy apps is my biggest gripe. It basically means that in a corporate environment you're never in Metro, so why have it there at all? The functionality from Windows 7 is all built-in, evidenced by the program "Classic Shell." So why couldn't Win 8.1 include those options from Microsoft direct? Because they're full of hubris.
 
2014-09-05 12:48:12 AM

xaks: Look, 8 and the debacle around it is what got Ballmer bounced and his entire team eventually canned.

There are SOME folks at MS that realize that, at the core, Microsoft has market dominance and more money than god for three reasons:

1.) Enterprise clients. Servers and workstations, meaning group policy, active directory, and control to admins

2.) OEM sales via mass marketing and deals with the manufacturers garunteeing driver support. Dell and HP, ATI and nVidia, EMC and Corsair, etc. You buy a box, there's a certain set of standards....you buy an off the shelf video card, download some drivers, and shiat works. RAM from any manufacturer can be used to upgrade if you follow small guidelines (i.e. pin numbers, voltages, etc)

3.) Users that will use what is put in front of them, be productive both at home and at work, and when that one stops working, *they go buy another without question*.


8 and the UI being ported to 'all platforms' farked up every one of these. The new management team has at least some idea that these three items need to be preserved *at all costs or Microsoft will fall*. That is not hyperbole.

If Threshold and the eventual 9 get back to these and essentially return to:

1.) A stable, fully controllable and customizable desktop client that admins and businesses can make do as they wish and secure, via group policy and AD and run in a domain environment.

2.) A couple of OEM type releases that are at different, simple price metrics (they failed badly at simple with vista and later) for end home users to also make and use.

3.) A UI *not designed to be on all things*. I cannot stress this enough.

To expand on 3...the UI cannot be all things on all devices because the environments are simple too disparate for our current programming languages to adapt to. A UI for a 4 by 3 touchscreen with tiles and gestures *will not work on three 29" HD screens four feet away from your fact with a mouse and keyboard period*.
Also, a normal UI for a 4 inch to ...


I disagree with a few points there.

Windows 8 wasn't an attempt to make the same UI For all devices, it was an attempt to make one OS with multiple UIs, so that the right one could be selected for whichever device you're using.  I use 8 on my desktop and spend 99% of my time in the desktop space.  People using Windows RT tablets will spend the vast majority of time in the metro space.  Those with full Windows 8 convertibles (like the Yoga or Surface) can split their time - using more metro stuff while in 'tablet mode' and more desktop stuff when attached to a keyboard.  Fully integrating Windows Phone into the same ecosystem would have been the next logical step, and it's still something going on, but that would have really given MS a killer app - one OS across all devices, with the same programs being able to be run on any device.

All in all, that was a very good idea, though I'll admit the execution wasn't perfect.  The only UI element that remained steady across all devices was the Start Screen, but apparently that little bit of metro was enough to enrage people.  I think a lot of the failure is due to the negative press early on - a lot of people heard they were supposed to hate it, so they went in expecting to hate it and succeeded.

I think MS's biggest fault was in allowing vendors to still ship new systems with Windows 7.  They would have done better to rip the bandaid off as it were and to force people into Windows 8 for all new systems.  By allowing continued sales of 7 based systems MS gave the impression that they weren't fully behind 8, which led people to think 'well, I'll just wait for them to undo the stuff I don't like'.

MS wouldn't have lost any meaningful business if they'd done that.  If people were upset about having to learn a new UI the only alternatives - Linux and MacOS, are even more different from Windows 7 than Windows 8 was.  Add in the high cost of Apple hardware and the lack of common program availability in Linux, and people would have grumbled a bit but just gone with it and learned how to use 8 effectively.

That being said, Windows 9 isn't a retreat from the previous course, it's a refinement.  The idea is still 'one OS to rule them all' they're just going to offer further differentiation in the device-specific UI - desktop users will now have the option of a more traditional desktop program launcher, and will be able to use the metro applications in a way that's more in line with how they've used desktop programs in the past.

Unifying across desktop, tablet, and phone will allow for some very cool capabilities.  Right now Office already straddles the lines - you can create a Word document on your PC, and then read and edit it on your tablet or phone.  Having the same Outlook inbox (with locally stored content mirrored and synced across devices) on all of your devices is also a useful feature.  Taking it a step further would be giving the mobile versions of applications like Excel and Powerpoint all of the features of the desktop version.  If I could create a presentation on my Windows 8 desktop, save it to my OneDrive, and then be able to launch that from my Windows Phone and use Miracast (or another wireless screen sharing protocol) to display and run that full presentation from my phone, that would be pretty cool, and would remove the need to lug around a laptop for a lot of things.

Other applications could similarly scale across devices - the same features (more or less, as it makes sense) just with a different UI tailored to the type of device you're using.  You install Photoshop on your PC, and you automatically get a touch-focused version on your tablet and a scaled down but still capable version on your phone for example.

Things could also go the other way - I download a game on my tablet, but can play it inside of a metro window on my desktop PC or full-screen on my phone.
 
2014-09-05 12:48:41 AM
Why do I have the sinking feeling that MS will fix all the things that people bitshed about in Win 8 / 8.1 and people will hate Win 9 just as much if not more?

/ Never had a prob with 8 / 8.1.
// Not a paid MS spokesperson.
 
2014-09-05 12:53:34 AM

Sum Dum Gai: TeamEd: a menu system will always be more efficient than a tile based system in terms of clicks and mouse movements.

If you're always using a mouse, maybe.  However, it's much more efficient to use a touch-optimized interface with a mouse than it is to use a mouse-optimized interface with touch.

The overall design of Windows 8 started from a good idea - an interface that would work regardless of your input methods, because there is such a variety and the lines are blurring between what once were different categories of devices.  You can use a mouse on a tablet, or a touch screen on a desktop.  On my Surface, I might use the mouse, the trackpad, my fingers, the keyboard, and the stylus in rapid succession, or even more than one at a time.

Eventually, I expect that touch-enabled monitors will be the norm, and our older 'untouchable' monitors will fade away like the CRT.  Seamlessly transitioning between different input methods is a key requirement in these kinds of cases - or the hybrid laptop/tablet devices like the Surface is today.  Windows 8 isn't perfect, but it's a step in that direction.


When 90 percent of users use a mouse and keyboard, making everyone switch to a touch optimized interface is very poor logic. Especially when Windows biggest advantages are for people doing jobs that are best accomplished using a mouse and keyboard.
/ Touch interfaces can be very useful and I think the Surface is a very cool machine.
// I cannot imagine preferring to touch a 20"+ screen -- let alone two or three -- over using a mouse except for a few specific jobs. A mouse is simply more efficient at navigating that much screen space.
 
2014-09-05 01:12:59 AM

TeamEd: // I cannot imagine preferring to touch a 20"+ screen -- let alone two or three -- over using a mouse except for a few specific jobs. A mouse is simply more efficient at navigating that much screen space.


Yep. Seems like someone at MS had a huge hard-on for Tom Cruise in Minority Report, and a bunch of other people thought it was a good idea.

/or also had huge hard-ons for Tom Cruise in Minority Report
//either way, I'm sure they were ground up into a fine pink powder
 
2014-09-05 01:13:40 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Windows 8 wasn't an attempt to make the same UI For all devices, it was an attempt to make one OS with multiple UIs, so that the right one could be selected for whichever device you're using.


If it was, it was the absolute worst attempt at that ever.  The only way you could choose any other interface method was to go through Metro first every time you started the computer, and Metro apps were set as the default handler for EVERYTHING.

Even outside that, so much of the interface was designed around touchscreen controls.  Touch-and-drag instead of simple clicks.  Hotzones instead of actual buttons.  These things persisted even in the Desktop environment, and were a constant thorn in everyone's side who tried to use Desktop for everyday use.

Ultimately, what undid Windows 8 for most people was trying to force Touchscreen design on Mouse-and-Keyboard users.  While you may disagree as to how much of that was by design, it's another significant part of why Windows 8 was so controversial, and why they've (apparently) stepped back almost all of it with Windows 9.
 
2014-09-05 01:18:59 AM

Unscratchable_Itch: Why do I have the sinking feeling that MS will fix all the things that people bitshed about in Win 8 / 8.1 and people will hate Win 9 just as much if not more?


Well, I certainly will.

It's still not going to be Mac OS.  And that's a fatal flaw.
 
2014-09-05 01:20:02 AM

dookdookdook: Finally got my first windows 8.1 PC a few weeks ago after avoiding it like the plague all this time.  Can't really understand what all the hate is about.  Yeah they jacked up the start menu, "Store Apps" are an absolute waste of time, they've cranked up the horrible UAC security garbage even tighter than before, and there seems to be no way to get rid of that giant clock that pops up whenever I put my mouse cursor in the wrong place, but the start screen is pretty handy once you unfarkulate it and everything else seems more or less the same.

It's still a billion times better than Ubuntu.


Try Windows 8, not Windows 8.1 and you'll have an Aha moment. I had to google where the shutdown button was for 8.
 
2014-09-05 01:21:59 AM

MagusAzod: Why should I spend half my time searching the internet trying to find a workaround to make something work on their "new and improved" system?


Because Microsoft would rather tell people what they want than ask them what they want.
 
2014-09-05 01:25:24 AM

RoxtarRyan: TeamEd: // I cannot imagine preferring to touch a 20"+ screen -- let alone two or three -- over using a mouse except for a few specific jobs. A mouse is simply more efficient at navigating that much screen space.

Yep. Seems like someone at MS had a huge hard-on for Tom Cruise in Minority Report, and a bunch of other people thought it was a good idea.

/or also had huge hard-ons for Tom Cruise in Minority Report
//either way, I'm sure they were ground up into a fine pink powder


Windoze 8 is really what got Steve Ballmer shiatcanned.  After things like Dance, Monkeyboy, Dance, and the chair throwing incident, they finally had enough with the massive clusterfark that is 8.
 
2014-09-05 01:32:09 AM

Ambivalence: MagusAzod: Why should I spend half my time searching the internet trying to find a workaround to make something work on their "new and improved" system?

Because Microsoft would rather tell people what they want than ask them what they want.


Works for Apple.  But Apple users have a mental block about complaining.  Or when they do it is never Apple's fault.
 
2014-09-05 01:36:50 AM
TuteTibiImperes: The big thing I don't understand about the Start Screen hate is that people seem to have an issue with it being full-screen.  Why?


The calculator going full-screen is annoying because -- 99% of the time -- it obscures the very numbers I wish to tally, which are usually on-screen ... and therefore now obscured by a GIANT needlessly full-screen calculator.  -_-
 
2014-09-05 01:43:08 AM

noazark: TuteTibiImperes: The big thing I don't understand about the Start Screen hate is that people seem to have an issue with it being full-screen.  Why?


The calculator going full-screen is annoying because -- 99% of the time -- it obscures the very numbers I wish to tally, which are usually on-screen ... and therefore now obscured by a GIANT needlessly full-screen calculator.  -_-


I agree, a full screen calculator would be annoying.  That doesn't have anything to do with the Start Screen though, and Windows 8 comes with the standard windowed desktop calculator as well.
 
2014-09-05 01:43:54 AM

yukichigai: TuteTibiImperes: Windows 8 wasn't an attempt to make the same UI For all devices, it was an attempt to make one OS with multiple UIs, so that the right one could be selected for whichever device you're using.

If it was, it was the absolute worst attempt at that ever.  The only way you could choose any other interface method was to go through Metro first every time you started the computer, and Metro apps were set as the default handler for EVERYTHING.

Even outside that, so much of the interface was designed around touchscreen controls.  Touch-and-drag instead of simple clicks.  Hotzones instead of actual buttons.  These things persisted even in the Desktop environment, and were a constant thorn in everyone's side who tried to use Desktop for everyday use.

Ultimately, what undid Windows 8 for most people was trying to force Touchscreen design on Mouse-and-Keyboard users.  While you may disagree as to how much of that was by design, it's another significant part of why Windows 8 was so controversial, and why they've (apparently) stepped back almost all of it with Windows 9.


Why on Earth would you ever consider completely ditching your standard UI? It's as if Ford decided "Screw the dashboard, we'll put the speedometer over on the passenger side, switch the gas and brake pedals, and lose the windshield." It's the cluster that the ribbon is times 10. All your customers that have loyally bought all the Office suites, and servers, etc now had to waste hours configuring and re-configuring the look and feel so they could just do their jobs again.
 
2014-09-05 01:48:06 AM

RoxtarRyan: Yep. Seems like someone at MS had a huge hard-on for Tom Cruise in Minority Report, and a bunch of other people thought it was a good idea.


Apple's been pushing the touchscreens-everywhere thing for a decade and Microsoft gets blamed?
 
2014-09-05 01:57:06 AM

DarkVader: Unscratchable_Itch: Why do I have the sinking feeling that MS will fix all the things that people bitshed about in Win 8 / 8.1 and people will hate Win 9 just as much if not more?

Well, I certainly will.

It's still not going to be Mac OS.  And that's a fatal flaw.


You mis-spelled "shiatty fork of Linux that's overly locked down for now good reason"
 
2014-09-05 01:58:46 AM

dookdookdook: RoxtarRyan: Yep. Seems like someone at MS had a huge hard-on for Tom Cruise in Minority Report, and a bunch of other people thought it was a good idea.

Apple's been pushing the touchscreens-everywhere thing for a decade and Microsoft gets blamed?


They have?
I mean, there are a few touch inspired screens in OS X, but you never see them unless you actually prefer them. It's hardly Windows 8.0 levels of pushing touchscreen UI on you.
OS X is my primary OS, I've customized the interface not at all and I've gone half a year without seeing any iOS inspired screens.
Windows 8.1 is my secondary OS, I've customized it as much as I can reasonably be bothered to and it throws me to Metro Iver random shiat at least once a session.
 
2014-09-05 02:16:35 AM

TeamEd: They have?


iphone/ipod touch in 2007, ipad in 2010, then everyone else jumping on the apple bandwagon...  If Microsoft was the first to try to put touchscreens on a PC, it was only a misguided attempt to get ahead of the trend Apple started.

it throws me to Metro Iver random shiat at least once a session.
 
Except for the start screen - which I actually like - I've pretty much never had to deal with Metro crap.  Just go into the start menu and uninstall everything under "Apps", then turn off every reference to the Windows Store (I think I had to regedit to get it out of the context menu or something IIRC), and I don't think there's any way you ever could be exposed to it.
 
Displayed 50 of 131 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report