Edit: fixed link.

Very interesting and very apt title. Pity MS threw common sense out the window. I guess this time around they are doing their usability testing with the public and finding out points 1, 2 & 3 the hard way.

One can argue that point 2 isn't as relevant because the idea is to permanently constrain everyone to Metro. The other two points are very relevant.

Your link seems to be broken though.

http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Irony

Windows 8 is a complete reversal of their own previous usability research and experience. All that good reasoning didn't turn simply obsolete on a whim. Metro on the desktop is just a marketing ploy first and foremost. A marketing ploy that apparently doesn't even work.

-Josh

This is one of the reasons I think there should be a new Win8 Taskforce like the other ones on Long Zheng's website http://www.aerotaskforce.com/. It'll be a central place where concerned users can collaborate on showing the people at Microsoft what parts of the Win8 UI need fixing.
Complaining on C9 isn't going to accomplish anything.

If they could give us a way to switch to "non-touchscreen" mode that works like Win7 it would also be good marketing. I think they're afraid to admit they went to far with the UI but the embarrassment of admitting this probably would be offset by the gratitude they would get from users and all the sales people at stores like Staples that just can't bring themselves to sell a machine with Win8 on it if it doesn't have a touchscreen (which there are only 2 of in my local store, one's hidden way at the bottom of the isle and the other is an ultrabook that has a password set on it so nobody can try it out).

First, the beginners shell vaguely resembling the start screen shows that a larger presentation like that was seen to have value even before it was motivated by touch. Second, some of the decisions around the start screen seem designed to address those points - it's a complete replacement for the start menu, not an additional "beginner" version from which you're eventually meant to graduate, and there's a class of apps that do look and act like the start screen.

Another relevant blast from the past here would be this Windows 7 blog post on touch:

"While providing this touchable experience, we made sure you are getting the full Windows 7 experience and not a sub-set just for touch. We've been asked if we are creating a new Touch UI, or "Touch Shell" for Windows – something like Media Center that completely replaces the UI of Windows with a version that is optimized for touch. As you can see from the beta, we are focused on bringing touch through the Windows experience and delivering optimized touch interface where appropriate.  A touch shell for launching only touch-specific applications would not meet customers' needs – there would be too much switching between "touch" mode and Windows applications. Instead, we focused our efforts on augmenting the overall experience so that Windows works great with touch."

My take: Yes, having two kinds of applications is a UX penalty. However, the penalty isn't infinite and can be justified if benefits exceed it. In this case I think having the new UI / app model be the "beginners shell" AND the "touch shell" AND the "instant on environment" (around 2009 when Windows 8 was being planned there was a trend for netbooks to initially boot into a Linux environment for basic internet browsing and status checking etc., before going into a heavier Windows environment) AND help introduce a new application model, together those benefits are enough to justify the cost of having a second model (and of course the long-term goal is to make the other model unnecessary for most people).

..... it's like people forget that there are also console applications in Windows.

All of this bitching and moaning about Metro reminds me of 1995, when Microsoft started to push DOS into the background in favour of their new "for beginners" Windows 95 interface, with its tacky Start menu (complete with an animation on the taskbar to guide peoples' eyes to the bottom-left corner) and keyboard-hostile file management interface.

People who'd spent the last 10-15 years working in DOS (the Lotus and Wordperfect crowd, the gamers, the BBSers, and basically everyone else who wasn't using a Mac) bitched, whined, complained, hemmed, hawed, posted screeds on Usenet, etc., but eventually they adjusted to this new interface.  The apps they wanted to use eventually showed up as native Win32 apps, too.  They managed, right?  I guess some of them fled to Unix systems because they didn't like GUIs.  Fine.  But Windows still went on to 95+% market share on the strength of the boldness of the radical changes behind Windows 95.

Making the Modern UI as "in your face" for desktop users at its "v1 stage" was a big mistake. I support the idea of a tablet/laptop hybrid that can also easily hook to larger monitors but this is comparable to making computers boot to Win 1.0 and then needing to exit that in order to use the apps you really want to use, and do this crap until Windows 98 came around.

My hope is that most people are smarter than to install Win 8 even if they got it free, as that will send a clear signal that the bean counters will understand. Yes. I would not even install Win 8 if you gave me it for free. And infact, the low ball offers MS made for Win 8 upgrades just suggest that it's real value is closer to worthless than Win 7 which was not so heavily discounted.

2 minutes ago, androidi wrote

this is comparable to making computers boot to Win 1.0 and then needing to exit that in order to use the apps you really want to use, and do this crap until Windows 98 came around.

Funny you should say that. Back when Windows 95 came out, my computer sort of had to triple boot. It could boot Windows 95, for when I wanted to mess about with that. It could boot Windows 3.11, which my dad needed for his work (and since his work still used Windows 3.11, he didn't want to get used to a completely different UI), and it could boot into DOS for games (which was probably its most used boot option).

I say "sort of triple booted", because the difference between booting DOS or Win3.11 was really just a config.sys/autoexec.bat menu choice that did or did not start Windows. To start Windows 95, you had to hit F4 at exactly the right time (the same time that you'd use for F8 in safe mode). Kind of impressive considering this was basically dual booting from a single partition.

Of course, some games required such strict amounts of free conventional memory that we had to use boot floppies (or add more config.sys menu options; I remember having different options for with/without CD-ROM drivers and with/without QEMM, at least).

So not only did we have numerous different environments needed to run different kinds of apps, switching between them actually required a full reboot. Having to click the desktop tile in the start screen is really not that inconvenient by comparison.

2 minutes ago, androidi wrote

And infact, the low ball offers MS made for Win 8 upgrades just suggest that it's real value is closer to worthless than Win 7 which was not so heavily discounted.

No, it suggests that MS hopes to make most of its money from the Windows Store (which did not exist for Windows 7), for which they will need as large a user base as possible.

That much is obvious but getting there by creating a negative sentiment for the early adopters doesn't seem like the best strategy. They could have at minimum made the Modern UI a "default" that desktop users can easily change to the Windows 7 style experience from a checkbox.

 re: The history lesson,

I don't this is quite comparable. I used similar self made boot menus and config.sys etc as most gamers had to, we had many boot options for specific games as well. I could have DR-DOS 6 installed and Win 3.1 did not mess around with the DR-DOS 6 environment. Win 8 going to Modern and then messing up a great deal with the Win 7 style experience on top of that pretty much created what you just said. I installed Windows 8 on alternate boot, took a good look and haven't bothered going back, particularly  after finding some biggest most popular games had problems in their installer in Win8, which leaves one to question about the compatibility for all the obscure stuff I have. (I did manage to get the popular game installed but only to find out that it said it won't support anything newer than Windows 7 when running it and compatibility mode didn't help because this message was from the drivers the game installs - maybe this has been fixed by now though for this popular title)

And I assumed that discounted upgrade price was because they are changing to a faster update cycle, so rather than one expensive upgrade every four years there are cheaper upgrades every year.

Herbie

I currently pin often launched document based stuff (excel, VS etc) on the start menu and only very frequently used stuff in the taskbar (IE, notepad replacement etc). The more rarely used things I launch from either desktop or the Run (win+r). I prefer the more often used or text input based stuff in Run history than desktop as I can start then start and run them purely without moving my hand to the mouse, where as mouse based stuff can be on the desktop as icons. I don't launch stuff using Start Menu search at all since I always disable indexing services and as Windows unindexed search is unusably slow I use NTFS search as that handles millions of files in second. I don't think the MSFT search guys can even dream up that kind of perf, or if they can, it will involve some background indexer service that happens to run when I'm using a MIDI keyboard and increase jitter...

re: release cycle

That would make sense. I'm tempted to here think about all the crap I've read (I don't own their devices, have only tried out) about Apple and Google cycle/updates. As Microsoft has experience here and should know what doesn't work well in the competitors models, I'll just wait and see if this would actually work out better than what the competition is doing.

1 hour ago, androidi wrote

@Dr Herbie: That might be satisfactory if the desktop experience was practically identical to Windows 7. Even in 7 you could configure it to resemble more XP/Vista style by setting small icons + combine when taskbar full and you can even add quick launch icons back just as it was in XP with little work.

You can still do all this in Win8.

I currently pin often launched document based stuff (excel, VS etc) on the start menu and only very frequently used stuff in the taskbar (IE, notepad replacement etc). The more rarely used things I launch from either desktop or the Run (win+r). I prefer the more often used or text input based stuff in Run history than desktop as I can start then start and run them purely without moving my hand to the mouse, where as mouse based stuff can be on the desktop as icons. I don't launch stuff using Start Menu search at all since I always disable indexing services and as Windows unindexed search is unusably slow I use NTFS search as that handles millions of files in second. I don't think the MSFT search guys can even dream up that kind of perf, or if they can, it will involve some background indexer service that happens to run when I'm using a MIDI keyboard and increase jitter...

So the only difference is that you'd have to pin the stuff you currently have on the start menu to the start screen instead. Win+R still works. Desktop shortcuts still work. The only possible issue here is loss of the jump lists for things that were pinned to the start menu, but if this is really a major issue there's probably third-party start menu replacements that can do that.

Yes Microsoft has introduced a touch interface on top of their desktop but for my personal everyday use this acts as a fancy start menu, it really doesn't bother me at all.

Do I use the "Metro" interface? Not really, but then again it wasn't designed for my traditional use, it was designed to bridge the gap to touch interface devices like tablets.

As a UI interface on it's own "Metro" isnt all that bad I mean it works great on Windows Phone and works fine on a touch enabled desktop, I really don't see why people are getting confused here.

Now the confusing part comes with the RT version, I really think Microsoft HAD to act and build a ARM version of the OS.  I really don't think it will be around for long as Intel will eventually catch up and everyone will forget about this ARM thing (just my opinion).

I think Windows 8 is a great OS just as good as Windows 7 if not better. The Metro Start Menu doesn't bother me or get in my way and I appreciate the need for a touch enabled interface.

To be honest I think as an engineering feat MS should be applauded for taking the bold step and creating a full fledged version of Windows on ARM, bringing the Metro interface to the desktop, 

When was the last significant update to OSX or iOS that took a step to push the boundaries and move software forward?

It's been years since Apple innovated with software, all these "analysts" predicting the downfall of MS due to Windows 8 MUST be on another planet to me.

Microsoft understands that there has to be some changes.  Eventually, the desktop/Win32 as we know it will cease to exist.  But that day is still far away, and they need a new experience to replace it.  Hence WinRT applications.

Microsoft cannot convince third-party application developers to move anything to WinRT if the Metro interface is not prominent enough to warrant the development effort.  Microsoft would also have a harder time in the future at training users if today, they convince users that the Metro interface is some crappy application they can ignore (or, worse, that they never see in the first place to know it even exists).

Sometimes, you choose to do what hurts a bit now so that you don't experience more pain in the future.

19 minutes ago, bondsbw wrote

Sometimes, you choose to do what hurts a bit now so that you don't experience more pain in the future.

+1 They already know within 2 years, touchscreens will catch on in desktop land and everything will just work together (3 screens and a cloud). It's important to note that they don't think just now or next year...they plan for the next 5-10 years. They probably consider short-term losses in their planning.

I'll leave the "Microsoft should have and still should" rant out, but there are software packages that have at least made Windows 8 work like I want it to work. 

1 hour ago, jinx101 wrote

I have my fair share of complaints about Windows 8 that I feel are warranted and reasonable.  I gave it a fair shot, it frustrated me a lot.  That said, I have found 3rd party utilities that add or change the behavior of Windows that have taken away most of those frustrations and allowed me to use Windows 8 like it was Windows 7 and STILL have the ability to get into the Metro apps if I want (which is rare, but there are a few I do use).  In fact, some of the utilities are customizable enough that they allow me to pick and choose to do more easier than Windows 7 (I love the ability to choose and not have something I don't like forced on me if I want to stay current).

I'll leave the "Microsoft should have and still should" rant out, but there are software packages that have at least made Windows 8 work like I want it to work. 

I understand people who think the Start Screen was a bad decision from a abstract standpoint -- saying it introduces incongruency, novices might not 'get' it, businesses would need retraining, etc..

What I don't understand is people who are good at computers, plenty capable of figuring out how things work, spending their effort turning it off. Its frustrating? Really? Its pretty damn easy.

4 hours ago, brian.​shapiro wrote

What I don't understand is people who are good at computers, plenty capable of figuring out how things work, spending their effort turning it off. Its frustrating? Really? Its pretty damn easy.

It's totally superfluous, completely distracting, and annoying. It's result of marriage between the movie Dumb and Dumber, and the Play Doh Fun Factory.

1 hour ago, JoshRoss wrote

*snip*

It's totally superfluous, completely distracting, and annoying.

That's what I was expecting it to be like. That's what my opinion was based on what I'd seen in the DP and CP.

But after actually using Windows 8 for an extended period of time, I can say it's really not. Superfluous you can argue about (though I actually really like some of the live tiles; my one wish for Windows "Blue" is to have the ability for desktop apps to have live tiles, as Outlook really needs one), but I don't actually find it distracting or annoying, even though I went in with the expectation that I would.

10 hours ago, Sven Groot wrote

 my one wish for Windows "Blue" is to have the ability for desktop apps to have live tiles, as Outlook really needs one),

+1 I don't like how programs are represented as tiles with embedded icons on the start screen. It just doesn't look good. Additionally, it'd be nice if they could somehow bring back jump list functionality on the start screen.

18 minutes ago, Sven Groot wrote

@JoshRoss: So, you've stripped everything that might possible have added value from the start screen, and are now complaining that it has no added value?

+1 lmao

As you can see, I have five groups. The first is useful live tiles and (somewhat) commonly used Metro apps (Rain Alarm is cool; not only does the tile display the proximity and intensity of any nearby rain (there's none at the moment), it also uses the Win8 notification system to warn me if rain is approaching). The second group is less used Metro stuff (Bing and Travel are really only in there because they look cool ). The third is office and development. The fourth is games. And the last is other frequently used tools.

I spend 99% of my time in desktop land, and the really frequently used stuff from here (like Outlook, VS, OneNote and PuTTY) is also pinned to my taskbar. But it's nice to get an overview when I turn the computer on or press the windows key. And I've been training myself to click the Outlook tile after starting my PC rather than go to the desktop and then click Outlook on the taskbar.

15 hours ago, brian.​shapiro wrote

*snip*

I understand people who think the Start Screen was a bad decision from a abstract standpoint -- saying it introduces incongruency, novices might not 'get' it, businesses would need retraining, etc..

What I don't understand is people who are good at computers, plenty capable of figuring out how things work, spending their effort turning it off. Its frustrating? Really? Its pretty damn easy.

Someone got frustrated quickly.   I don't like being taken out of context when I'm doing something and having the whole screen taken over.  I don't like having to scour through 3 or 4 different places trying to find settings.  I don't like hidden tiles I have to hover over or hover then slide up half the screen to find a button.  So ya, it is frustrating.  I found a way around it with 3rd party software and now it works exactly like I want it.  I now can have the best of both worlds, and why should that be a problem? 

And, I did figure it out and I didn't like it.  Figuring something out doesn't mean I have to prefer it that way.  There are plenty of things I can figure out I don't like. 

17 hours ago, jinx101 wrote

I have my fair share of complaints about Windows 8 that I feel are warranted and reasonable.  I gave it a fair shot, it frustrated me a lot.  That said, I have found 3rd party utilities that add or change the behavior of Windows that have taken away most of those frustrations and allowed me to use Windows 8 like it was Windows 7 and STILL have the ability to get into the Metro apps if I want (which is rare, but there are a few I do use).  In fact, some of the utilities are customizable enough that they allow me to pick and choose to do more easier than Windows 7 (I love the ability to choose and not have something I don't like forced on me if I want to stay current).

I'll leave the "Microsoft should have and still should" rant out, but there are software packages that have at least made Windows 8 work like I want it to work. 

Seriously you find hitting the windows key and typing an application name confusing? Righto!

Your always going to have to have stuff forced on you, it's called progress. Software gets updated from time to time, deal with it.

Also, I didn't say it was confusing (you perhaps read another post and "confused" it by thinking I said the start screen was confusing, which I didn't say).  Confusing and frustrating are two different things.  You think that because I don't like it that I don't understand it.  I do understand, but I don't like it.

Why do you care if people don't like it and find 3rd party solutions anyway to make Windows work like they have come to expect it to? 

3 hours ago, leeappdalec​om wrote

*snip*

 

Seriously you find hitting the windows key and typing an application name confusing? Righto!

Your always going to have to have stuff forced on you, it's called progress. Software gets updated from time to time, deal with it.

You know what is confusing ... if you search for "Event" expecting the Event Logs or View Event Logs to come up and it doesn't come up under apps on one system, but it does on the other and then you have to switch to Settings to find it ... and you scratch your head wondering why it works on one system but not another ... then you remember that you did something on one system to show Administrative tools in the Start Screen, and that made them available to the App search charm ... that kind of thing is confusing.  I can deal, but it's stuff like that which should be ironed out over the next while. 

7 hours ago, jinx101 wrote

*snip*

And, I did figure it out and I didn't like it.  Figuring something out doesn't mean I have to prefer it that way.  There are plenty of things I can figure out I don't like. 

No, its just that, for me, its pretty easy to use, not just pretty easy to figure out.

9 hours ago, Sven Groot wrote

@JoshRoss: So, you've stripped everything that might possibly have added value from the start screen, and are now complaining that it has no added value?

There was only one tile that I would ever end-up clicking on, so I just got rid of the rest. It makes it easier to find. After I posted the image, I realized that I could remove the desktop tile too and just click on the bottom left to get to the desktop.

-Josh