Microsoft should stick to its guns and keep the Start button gone

Op-ed: If Redmond wants Metro apps to succeed, it needs education, not capitulation.

Read the whole story

 

[Voldenuit]

JGoat[/url]":3rncblc2]
You misrepresent fact. There are millions of people using Win 8 on laptops/desktops who don't reject it.

There are studies showing that the majority of win8 users are ignoring metro apps altogether.

Ignoring the existence of happy Win 8 users is naive.

Conflating "windows 8 licenses sold" with "windows 8 OS deployed" is inaccurate, as MS does not publish figures for downgrade rights use, and records every windows license sold as a "windows 8 license" (they did the same thing with Vista and XP downgrades). Further conflating "windows 8 user" with "happy windows 8 user" is disingenuous at best.

Chalk me up as an "antipathic windows 8 user". I installed it on my wife's touchscreen+active digitizer laptop last xmas for $15 and we tolerate, but do not love the experience. Notwithstanding the learning curve and discoverability issues, even after we have grown accustomed to the OS, neither of us are happy with the usability and limitations of the OS. It's still on the laptop because, well, I'm not sure why. Probably laziness on my part. So we're tolerating it out of inertia. Not exactly a poster child for the hypothetical "happy windows 8 user". If one were to track out Metro usage, we rarely ever launch any Metro apps, and have not purchased a single paid app for Metro.

 

[pdg]

I agree, Microsoft should stick to its guns. Capitulation just feeds the practitioners of the Microsoft-hating religion.

 

[dal20402]

When buying an Android device or OSX, it's locked up.

How is an OS X computer (as opposed to an iOS device) locked up? You can write or load any software you want.

And Microsoft knows perfectly well that if the legacy Windows environment disappears, so does their marketshare. They can encourage people to transition to Metro, but in the end their leverage is very limited. Your paranoia is a waste of effort.

 

[rockforbrains]

JGoat[/url]":1d6h98vn]

SolidOak[/url]":1d6h98vn]

JGoat[/url]":1d6h98vn]

Stuka87[/url]":1d6h98vn]

JGoat[/url]":1d6h98vn]

Stuka87[/url]":1d6h98vn]So the author thinks that Windows users should suffer with a poorly implemented touch interface on the millions of PC's that DON'T HAVE TOUCH!

Not to mention all of us with large, multi-monitor setups have arguable the WORST user experience with Windows 8.

And then don't let me get into the horrible search setup in Windows 8. You can no longer hit the windows key, type want you want, arrow down, and hit enter. Now it requires mouse clicks to do anything.

Sounds like the editor of this article doesn't actually work on their PC outside of typing. Try hooking up three 24+ inch displays and use 15 or so programs at any given time while having to do regular searches for other programs/docs/etc. Then come back and say Windows 8 is fine.

You've got to be joking, Win 8 greatly improves the multi-monitor experience over Win 7.

I search without using my mouse all the time on Win 8, wtf are you talking about?

I'm all for people having different preferences, I don't care if people like Win 8, but it sounds like you've got no idea what you're talking about.

When performing a search, the Start Menu (Windows 7) displays results from all applicable categories in an easy to read list. In contrast, the Start Screen's (Windows 8) Apps, Settings, and Files categories only display one at a time and require the user to perform additional mousing and extra clicks to view all the results from a given search.

As for the displays, *WHY* am I forced to have a full screen menu to display a handful of items? The menu is a joke when using a large monitor.

I respect your opinion about the full screen menu, I think it's quick and easy, but I get that some find it disruptive. I find the multimon support to be fantastic, I like having the programs on each screen appear on that screens taskbar.

Regarding search, you can choose which section you want to search with these shortcuts:
Apps: Windows + Q
Settings: Windows +W
Files: Windows + F

Apps is the default, so I don't bother with that shortcut, really just use Windows button, or Windows+F typically.

This just follows the illogical implementation of stupidity in Win8. Win+Q for Apps??? Wouldn't the logical hot key be Win+A?? Duh?! CRTL+W is Close Window, yet Win+W is Settings?? Huh??! What kind of dope are they smoking?

I would just prefer Win+D = Detonate...

What's logical about Alt+F4, or Ctrl+Alt+Del? It takes a trivial amount of time to learn a shortcut, maybe you forget it a couple times and look it up again before it sticks, but the expectation that every shortcut be as simple as 'b for bold' is unrealistic.

You miss the point of any GUI that is to provide users with graphical way of doing the task in addition to any keyboard shortcuts. Most users are not that technically sophistocated and rely heavily on the GUI to do their tasks.

 

[dfiler]

JGoat[/url]":30ayf4ps]
You misrepresent fact. There are millions of people using Win 8 on laptops/desktops who don't reject it. I'm continually amazed at the negative response to Win8 on Ars, it stands in stark contrast to what I see out in the wild. Ignoring the existence of happy Win 8 users is naive. I'm mostly intrigued by what has caused this intransigence, Win 8 is not radically different from Win 7. Your notion of a 'traditional GUI' for the last 20 years is comical, Windows has changed greatly over the past 2 decades.

And if you aren't familiar with Mac OS, there's a learning curve there too, much steeper than from Win7 to Win8. Point your friend to one of the dozen articles that highlight helpful Win-8 shortcuts and they'll be fine.

As with anything used by millions of people, there will always be both positive and negative opinions. Stating the existence of either is pointless.

What you should focusing on are the merits of arguments made on either side. It has been my observation that the well reasoned critiques are the negative ones. That criticism is typically not focused on the hurdle of learning something new, but rather the problems introduced by the poorly designed interaction most easily referred to as "metro".

My pet peeve is that the GUI no longer indicates functionality via the physical appearance of interface elements. There is absolutely no distinction between clickable or draggable regions and non-interactive regions. And that's just one of a hundred different concrete examples of exactly why I consider windows 8 to be the biggest blunder in microsoft history. Yes, even worse than vista.

 

[heinsj]

JEDIDIAH[/url]":rtxhx2qy]

firsttimeposter[/url]":rtxhx2qy]

PsychoArs[/url]":rtxhx2qy]A hidden interface is a bad interface. Period.

The hot-corners and charms bars and windows-button-that-is-invisible on Win8 is bad, bad, bad interface design. It's counter-intuitive and less accessible. You find it by accident, not by exploration. It's scattered and distributed over multiple screen areas.

Did I mention it's bad interface design?

I find this hilarious because when MS didn't have hot corners, everyone was raving about hot corners about OS X.

Not everyone, just the talking heads in the tech media. Outside of "journalists" trying to force an Apple dominated future on us, I don't think anyone really thought that hot corners were such a hot idea.

In OS X hot corners can be configured according to users needs or turned off completely. Do I have those options with Windows 8?

 

[Tundro Walker]

This little change doesn't change the fact that they threw out a lot of usability design ideaology out the window when they decided to shoe-horn metro in with Win8.

EG: text floating on the screen that the user doesn't know is a button until they accidentally hover over it.

I'm sorry, but it's like someone at MS decided "screw years of research, we're gonna try something totally new, b/c it looks 'clean and simple'".

A lot of folks here have the same problem at their own jobs. They try to follow best-practice standards, but some idiot shows up and does something "because it looks cool" or whatever, and it makes everything else difficult.

I don't know, maybe MS fired all their usability experts. Or, maybe (more likely), b/c usability experts are matrix managers (ie: they can consult, but they don't have control/power over designers / programmers) they probably got all of their suggestions swept under the rug by designers that wanted to "make it look cool" while hosing up usability.

"Capitulating" by bringing back a "start button" is such a laugh, b/c it's like shaving off the smallest tip of the iceburg of issues while leaving the bulk under the ocean and ignoring it. It's an insult.

 

[rajpaul]

The lack of a start button presents a major usability issue that needs to be addressed regardless of any consistency issues.

Example: Try using Windows 8 in a VM in a window or via a Remote Desktop session in a window. It's damn difficult to get the mouse in that magic "hover" sweet spot that triggers the start screen icon to appear and be clicked. More than difficult, it's nigh impossible when you can't just "shove" your mouse into the corner of the monitor. And when you're operating remotely, hitting the Windows key is just going to bring up the host's start screen/menu, not the one on the remote session.

Even if bringing the button back is a consistency problem, it at least is a band-aid on this very real problem.

 

[DemBones79]

I really don't get some of the criticisms I've read in this comment thread. It's almost like the majority of the critics haven't spent the time to actually get to know Windows 8, and haven't actually read and comprehended the changes coming in 8.1.

Multi-monitor support:

Many of those complaining are the ones who would be using Win8 in Desktop mode exclusively. This is why the complaints about multi-monitor support baffles me. Win8's Desktop multimon support is by far Microsoft's best implementation yet. Things that we have previously needed 3rd-party applications for in the past are built right in.

True, the Metro side of things sucks for multi-monitor users right now, but as was mentioned in this article and elsewhere, that will be changing in 8.1.

Metro as a touch-only interface:

I don't own a touchscreen on my primary computer. Nor does my laptop have one. Heck, my laptop's trackpad doesn't even support the new Win8 gestures. I've been using my mouse and keyboard (trackpad and keyboard on the laptop) since Windows 8's release. In general, my ability to navigate the various ins and outs of the computer has remained largely flat, overall, and is actually faster in some respects.

The larger targets on the Start Screen require less precision on my part. I just need to get in the right general vicinity and click. I don't need to precisely guide my cursor over a 48x48px icon. When I'm in a rush, that's a bit of a time saver. Since I put my Start Screen tiles where they are, I can count on them being precisely where I expect them to be 100% of the time. If I know it takes 2 scrolls to get to the partition where I pinned my VMWare Player tile, I can always hit Start, scroll twice, and mouse just a bit from center to hit it.

Where the UI falls apart from a mouse perspective is in all the areas Peter mentioned: mousing to the bottom left for the Start screen, mousing to the bottom or top right for the charms bar, and right-clicking to bring up the app bar. They're not obvious. After months of use, however, all of these are second nature to me. I don't even think about it anymore. The behavior has been learned. And that's just the mouse gestures. I'm even faster when I use the keyboard shortcuts too. I think I use Win+H a couple dozen times a day.

Shutting down the computer:

I agree, this one is kind of annoying. I'm also one of those weirdos that is used to shutting the computer down from the Start Menu. That's mostly because my computer was difficult to reach from my seat. I'd slap the power button as I walk past it to sit down, use it all day, and shut it down from the Start Menu before getting out of my seat.

Since migrating to Windows 8, I alternate between shutting the computer down from the Ctrl+Alt+Del screen and shutting it down from the Settings charm. Since I'm not in the habit of shutting my computer down several times a day, this really isn't a dealbreaker for me. It could be easier, but it's not over-complicated either.

Performance, bloat, etc.:

I'm pretty sure these people are trolls. Or just ill-informed. Windows 8, straight off a fresh install and fresh boot, consumes less memory than Windows 7 on the same hardware. Admittedly, the Win8 comparison is from a pre-release build. You can tell by the flattened Aero interface, but the Win7-style Task Manager. The new Task Manager is flat-out awesome and provides way more information than the old one, by the way.

The Start Screen as a launcher:

I get that some people just want to navigate through the old fly-out menus of the old Start Menu. I don't feel that way, but I know some of you do. I have always been one of those nuts that pins the important stuff to the Taskbar and for everything else I rely on shortcuts on the desktop. For anything that's not there, I just search for it in the Start Screen (or Start Menu in Win7.) I even saw someone complain in a previous thread that they don't even like seeing the Start Screen flash up for the brief interval where they are typing in their search string. This one baffles me. Unless you're watching the results refresh after every keystroke or you type at a rate of 2 seconds per key, the Start Screen shouldn't even be up long enough to be an annoyance before you've pressed Enter and launched your application.

Speaking of Start Screen search results, I saw someone complain about the division of the results into three categories. Did you not read the article? That's being fixed. That will no longer be an issue with 8.1.

I treat my Start Screen as a dashboard. My first two columns include weather, messages, email, Skype, my calendar, Twitter, and NextGen Reader. At a glance, I can see what, if anything, needs my attention. To do this on the desktop, I would need multiple applications open, or a browser with multiple tabs (which I would have to check manually since browser tabs don't really display notifications that well.) To get to the rest of my applications, I need only scroll. It's simple, it's organized, and for me it's efficient.

All this said, I know I'm weird. I actually try to use applications, devices, OSes, and services the way the creator intended first. To use them the way they expect them to be used. Once I'm comfortable with that, I then try to find ways to adapt it to the way I want it to work. During the process, sometimes I find new ways to work that actually work better than what I did before. Just because it always worked, doesn't mean that it worked best or that there aren't better ways to work.

I don't believe that all change is good. I do believe that this change was good, and it's only getting better.

(edited for clarity)

 

[BadassSailor]

Geminiman[/url]":28zidhxn]The problem isn't that they took off the start button. It's that they didn't go far enough. What they should have done (especially on the RT version) is remove the taskbar entirely. It serves absolutely no functional purpose at all and it causes FUD by having it there. You want to switch between apps? swipe from the left, or jamb your mouse to the left side of the screen. What to see all running apps? drag down while you do it. Want to see the time? Swipe from the right or jamb your mouse to the right of the screen.

What they should have done is make all apps run maximized and remove the min/max buttons and items from the control box entirely from all apps. For apps that are fixed dialogs and don't allow full screen, they should have put up a black background on them when they run (or keep the same background as the metro start screen).

By doing this with Windows 8, everyone would have gotten a clear message. Desktop apps would have been relegated to legacy but would have worked perfectly within the metaphor of Modern UI and there wouldn't be 2 messages. Given that the VAST majority of legacy apps are opened full screen on the vast majority of computers, this would have eliminated all of the confusing in one shot.

What it would have done is pissed off multi-monitor users because it wouldn't have worked well for them. However, 8.1 fixes this with multiple apps allowed per screen with splitting and multiple apps open at the same time on multiple screens. This eliminates that argument.

I still think that for 8.1 they should enable this mode as the default, and have an option for people to turn on the task bar and the stupid start menu button if they want to live in legacy land. That way those of us that want a pure system can get it. Everyone else that likely ran Windows XP with classic mode for years and probably still does the same with Windows 7 can live with their heads in the sand and refuse to learn all they want and everything will be fine.

Windows 8, like Vista is an excellent OS that suffers from tech geek hate, nothing more. Vista got hated by tech geeks because it required more memory and at release didn't have driver support for homemade computers. Every desktop coming pre-built had every driver and it just worked and was vastly superior for that vast majority of users, but those majority of users listen to their tech geek friends and didn't go for it because the tech geeks hated it, even though that's exactly why they SHOULD HAVE GONE FOR IT.

Windows 8 has the same problem. Tech geeks don't like it. I personally get little value, because I spend my days in Visual Studio with 150 browser tabs and windows open because of my job. But I just got my wife a Surface Pro. SHE LOVES IT. Thinks it's the best computer she's ever used and just loves the Modern UI and how she doesn't have to worry about windows Explorer and where to store her files and native integration of skydrive and the only thing she uses that isn't metro is Word and Excel. Her only comment to me was to ask why there was a different background and the "silly bar" at the bottom when she opened Word. Heck, she doesn't even notice the faults with the Modern Email client and calendar that tech geeks do, and she LIVES in email, and calendars and One Note and her browser for her job. And yes, she had an IPAD and hated it because it was so limited, and LOVES the surface because "it just makes sense". Why? Because she's not a tech geek and doesn't use a computer like a tech geek, but still needs a real computer, and not a toy (i.e. Ipad/android pad).

Tech geeks would do well to look at how a person is going to use it before they judge and comment to others about Windows 8. If you do, you'll see why you're experience and impressions are not even remotely the same as what the vast majority of users, including the vast majority of people you'll advise, will experience with Windows 8.

That's because the majority of people are idiots that could get along fine with a tablet instead of a full computer. You don't need functionality to check celebrity news, post pictures of your food, and help nigerian princes smuggle their fortunes out of the country.

Us evil tech geeks do more than that on our computers and want the functionality to do so. Your typical stupid user was shackled to a PC because nothing else existed, or what did was laughable. Now there are tablets, netbooks, phones, etc that do what the majority of morons use their pc for, let them buy those devices, and let us power users have a functional machine.

It's like telling a 3 star chef: Using prepackaged sauces and a microwave is far superior to your silly egg cracking and flour measuring.

 

[Tundro Walker]

dfiler[/url]":2r5wbg3w]My pet peeve is that the GUI no longer indicates functionality via the physical appearance of interface elements. There is absolutely no distinction between clickable or draggable regions and non-interactive regions. And that's just one of a hundred different concrete examples of exactly why I consider windows 8 to be the biggest blunder in microsoft history. Yes, even worse than vista.

Exactly.

The whole point of human-user interface design is to make an interface intuitive. A user should be able to see an interface and quickly figure out how it works.

MS took steps backwards on that. Now there's a learning curve to figuring out their Win 8 UI. It's the 21st century. Usability is supposed to be progressing, not regressing. But, they regressed it for the sake of "simple, clean design".

I'm sorry, but MS should let their usability folks have some baseball bats and througroughly beat the hell out of the interface designers for this. B/c obviously somebody didn't listen to someone when they decided to reinvent the wheel ... poorly.

 

[drfisheye]

dal20402[/url]":176eyqwj]

drfisheye[/url]":176eyqwj]The leaked preview showed that Win+Q will let you search with just a sidebar, not a full screen context switch.

Is this actually correct? It's the first I've heard of it. If so, that might make me actually want to upgrade to Windows 8.

The full-screen context switch is the absolute deal breaker for me. The other issues related to the awkward integration of Metro and desktop are annoying, but I can live with them.

Here's a picture of searching apps without context switch:

It's a leak, so not sure if it will stay.

 

[Tundro Walker]

BadassSailor[/url]":1r9ctxxv]

Geminiman[/url]":1r9ctxxv]The problem isn't that they took off the start button. It's that they didn't go far enough. What they should have done (especially on the RT version) is remove the taskbar entirely. It serves absolutely no functional purpose at all and it causes FUD by having it there. You want to switch between apps? swipe from the left, or jamb your mouse to the left side of the screen. What to see all running apps? drag down while you do it. Want to see the time? Swipe from the right or jamb your mouse to the right of the screen.

What they should have done is make all apps run maximized and remove the min/max buttons and items from the control box entirely from all apps. For apps that are fixed dialogs and don't allow full screen, they should have put up a black background on them when they run (or keep the same background as the metro start screen).

By doing this with Windows 8, everyone would have gotten a clear message. Desktop apps would have been relegated to legacy but would have worked perfectly within the metaphor of Modern UI and there wouldn't be 2 messages. Given that the VAST majority of legacy apps are opened full screen on the vast majority of computers, this would have eliminated all of the confusing in one shot.

What it would have done is pissed off multi-monitor users because it wouldn't have worked well for them. However, 8.1 fixes this with multiple apps allowed per screen with splitting and multiple apps open at the same time on multiple screens. This eliminates that argument.

I still think that for 8.1 they should enable this mode as the default, and have an option for people to turn on the task bar and the stupid start menu button if they want to live in legacy land. That way those of us that want a pure system can get it. Everyone else that likely ran Windows XP with classic mode for years and probably still does the same with Windows 7 can live with their heads in the sand and refuse to learn all they want and everything will be fine.

Windows 8, like Vista is an excellent OS that suffers from tech geek hate, nothing more. Vista got hated by tech geeks because it required more memory and at release didn't have driver support for homemade computers. Every desktop coming pre-built had every driver and it just worked and was vastly superior for that vast majority of users, but those majority of users listen to their tech geek friends and didn't go for it because the tech geeks hated it, even though that's exactly why they SHOULD HAVE GONE FOR IT.

Windows 8 has the same problem. Tech geeks don't like it. I personally get little value, because I spend my days in Visual Studio with 150 browser tabs and windows open because of my job. But I just got my wife a Surface Pro. SHE LOVES IT. Thinks it's the best computer she's ever used and just loves the Modern UI and how she doesn't have to worry about windows Explorer and where to store her files and native integration of skydrive and the only thing she uses that isn't metro is Word and Excel. Her only comment to me was to ask why there was a different background and the "silly bar" at the bottom when she opened Word. Heck, she doesn't even notice the faults with the Modern Email client and calendar that tech geeks do, and she LIVES in email, and calendars and One Note and her browser for her job. And yes, she had an IPAD and hated it because it was so limited, and LOVES the surface because "it just makes sense". Why? Because she's not a tech geek and doesn't use a computer like a tech geek, but still needs a real computer, and not a toy (i.e. Ipad/android pad).

Tech geeks would do well to look at how a person is going to use it before they judge and comment to others about Windows 8. If you do, you'll see why you're experience and impressions are not even remotely the same as what the vast majority of users, including the vast majority of people you'll advise, will experience with Windows 8.

That's because the majority of people are idiots that could get along fine with a tablet instead of a full computer. You don't need functionality to check celebrity news, post pictures of your food, and help nigerian princes smuggle their fortunes out of the country.

Us evil tech geeks do more than that on our computers and want the functionality to do so. Your typical stupid user was shackled to a PC because nothing else existed, or what did was laughable. Now there are tablets, netbooks, phones, etc that do what the majority of morons use their pc for, let them buy those devices, and let us power users have a functional machine.

It's like telling a 3 star chef: Using prepackaged sauces and a microwave is far superior to your silly egg cracking and flour measuring.

I hate to keep posting on this threat (don't want to be seen as spam), but I do agree with your assessment currently.

However, in the near future I see more folks needing a home PC ... for work.

Currently the speed & cost of the internet is preventing businesses from leveraging more work-from-home employees. Almost everyone at my job could work from home. Why don't we? Because the VPN is laggy. As internet fiber starts increasing in speeds, I think more companies are going to offer employees a work-from-home incentive. You have your own computer at home, you log into a VPN, you work from home. Saves us from paying for office space.

I think once internet gets faster and cheaper (hopefully via Google's push on ATT, Verizon, et.al.), we'll see the PC market pick up again as companies or people buy newer computers to use for work-from-home jobs. I really just see it being pointless for lots of folks to come into a physical work location these days when their personal phone and computer can be utilized for their job. Save personal time not commuting. Save gas money. Company cuts costs on office space and perhaps hardware expenses. There's incentive on both ends, but the internet in between is current prohibiting wide adoption.

 

[JGoat]

Voldenuit[/url]":2cq2le2s]

JGoat[/url]":2cq2le2s]
You misrepresent fact. There are millions of people using Win 8 on laptops/desktops who don't reject it.

There are studies showing that the majority of win8 users are ignoring metro apps altogether.

Ignoring the existence of happy Win 8 users is naive.

Conflating "windows 8 licenses sold" with "windows 8 OS deployed" is inaccurate, as MS does not publish figures for downgrade rights use, and records every windows license sold as a "windows 8 license" (they did the same thing with Vista and XP downgrades). Further conflating "windows 8 user" with "happy windows 8 user" is disingenuous at best.

Chalk me up as an "antipathic windows 8 user". I installed it on my wife's touchscreen+active digitizer laptop last xmas for $15 and we tolerate, but do not love the experience. Notwithstanding the learning curve and discoverability issues, even after we have grown accustomed to the OS, neither of us are happy with the usability and limitations of the OS. It's still on the laptop because, well, I'm not sure why. Probably laziness on my part. So we're tolerating it out of inertia. Not exactly a poster child for the hypothetical "happy windows 8 user". If one were to track out Metro usage, we rarely ever launch any Metro apps, and have not purchased a single paid app for Metro.

I don't disagree with you, I ignore Metro apps but love Win 8. I would never claim that each license = one happy user, likewise it seems foolish to suggest that the overwhelming majority of people hate Win 8. I get that some people legitimately do not like Win 8.

 

[drfisheye]

dfiler[/url]":g708fkkf]My pet peeve is that the GUI no longer indicates functionality via the physical appearance of interface elements. There is absolutely no distinction between clickable or draggable regions and non-interactive regions. And that's just one of a hundred different concrete examples of exactly why I consider windows 8 to be the biggest blunder in microsoft history. Yes, even worse than vista.

Clickable icons have a cricle. Easy. Please give some examples of where you don't understand where you can click in metro apps. And give some counter examples where the old desktop does make it clear where you can click. Icons looking like huge fat buttons haven't been around since Windows 3.1.

 

[Davebo]

Teaching - what exactly, Peter? How to be a fucking sheep?

 

[Exelius]

Ok Microsoft, let me fix your problems for you. I normally charge for this, but in your case I'll make an exception for the good of humanity.

1. Roll the default Windows 7 UI back into Windows 8.
2. For the default Windows 7 UI (let's call it the Windows Classic UI) have the start button display a miniaturized version of the Start screen.
3. Include an on-install check (and associated scripted variables for auto installs) to see if the computer Windows 8 is being installed on has a touchscreen digitizer. Also check if it has a physical keyboard. Keyboard, no digitizer = Windows Classic. Digitizer, no keyboard = Metro. Digitizer AND keyboard = ask (its ok to default to Metro, since it's obvious they want to encourage it.)
4. Let users switch between the two in a control panel.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD? Microsoft has to realize that they make products that serve multiple markets, and those users have different needs that can be approximated by hardware configurations. Businesses won't buy laptops with digitizers because they cost more and aren't necessary. Consumers will buy them because the OEMs probably won't give them a choice.

Metro may be a better UI for consumers anyway, but it blows ass for professionals who sit in Excel/AutoCAD/Photoshop all day, and Microsoft is driving them towards Macs. It's actually happening; I do work at large, corporate as hell companies, and their executives are starting to demand Macs, so IT has to support them.

 

[Cartigan]

Tundro Walker[/url]":ht028hai]
I think once internet gets faster and cheaper (hopefully via Google's push on ATT, Verizon, et.al.), we'll see the PC market pick up again as companies or people buy newer computers to use for work-from-home jobs. I really just see it being pointless for lots of folks to come into a physical work location these days when their personal phone and computer can be utilized for their job. Save personal time not commuting. Save gas money. Company cuts costs on office space and perhaps hardware expenses. There's incentive on both ends, but the internet in between is current prohibiting wide adoption.

Work from home has 100% of nothing to do with internet speeds. I have no idea where you are going

 

[ror]

Preach brother Peter, preach!

it's too late now, but their approach should've been 1) education, 2) visual cues, 3) an ability to add a Start button to the taskbar. the 3rd option being for admins and fussy "power users."

they have acknowledged the terrible tutorial and I hope 8.1 includes a useful walkthrough that runs after the 8.1 upgrade or when a new PC is turned on.

also, re: Metro apps, I already use Weather, Mail, News, Sports, NY Times, and The Big Picture regularly on my desktop.

 

[Krieger]

Midnitte[/url]":37f88m5z]

ebbv[/url]":37f88m5z]I'm sure they want Metro apps to succeed, they just want Windows 8 as a whole and their stock price to succeed more.

I like when companies do bold things, and overall I'm in favor of the look and feel of Metro, but forcing a touch and gesture based interface on a desktop and on most laptops is just bad UI design.

A thousand times this, they could just as easily make the UI adapt to your device, no touch? Classic windows UI. Touch? No start button, all the metro things.

Thank you. Such a simple summary.

Microsoft removed code that could have easily accommodated both adaption to type of device and user choice for workflow.

I completely agree that Metro works well on tablets. I can only swear about it when I try it on a desktop, or laptop, or system with multiple monitors, etc.

As I keep reiterating as a Microsoft enterprise customer, they've lost me until they fix those issues. Windows 7 will be our platform of choice for a long time... which is amusing, because through the RC we were on board with Windows 8...

 

[Maxipad]

JGoat[/url]":9vo8a9hh]

Maxipad[/url]":9vo8a9hh]

IdaGno[/url]":9vo8a9hh]

People didn't want the start button they wanted the start menu.

Some of us demand a desktop OS completely free of any Metro code whatsoever, as in less is more.

Metro = Touch = portable devices = trivial apps, not at all what the traditional desktop user is all about.

This!

I will always own a powerful, big screened, Desktop PC. The traditional GUI is exactly what I want, perfected over 20 or so years. I won't buy anything with a Metro and touch-styled interface for this device, ever.

How many desktop and laptop PCs are there world wide? This is the user-base that MS said FU to with Win8. I own 2 PCs and will buy replacements as needed. I'm honestly not much interested in a lightweight, touch interface, pad style device and I notice that many of my friends that own them slowly reduce the amount of time they use them, due to their inherent limitations.

They're consumption devices only, with a small, unsatisfying screen. A great novelty, but not a truly competent, versatile device or computer. Too large to have the convenient portability of a phone, too small to have the power of a PC.

Incidentally, a friend recently bought his first PC, a good laptop, unfortunately with Win8 installed and it is essentially unusable to him. The Metro interface is not easily discoverable or usable for a new PC user.

Peter, no amount of arguing and calling PC users "whiners" is going to change the fact that Win8 is an "Epic Fail" for the traditional PC market.

If they haven't fixed this interface so that it is at least as usable for the Desktop PC user as Win7 by the time I have to upgrade, I'm going to end up buying a Mac. I'd hate to have to do that, but a Desktop PC needs a true Desktop interface.

You misrepresent fact. There are millions of people using Win 8 on laptops/desktops who don't reject it. I'm continually amazed at the negative response to Win8 on Ars, it stands in stark contrast to what I see out in the wild. Ignoring the existence of happy Win 8 users is naive. I'm mostly intrigued by what has caused this intransigence, Win 8 is not radically different from Win 7. Your notion of a 'traditional GUI' for the last 20 years is comical, Windows has changed greatly over the past 2 decades.

And if you aren't familiar with Mac OS, there's a learning curve there too, much steeper than from Win7 to Win8. Point your friend to one of the dozen articles that highlight helpful Win-8 shortcuts and they'll be fine.

I didn't misrepresent any facts. There are over 100 million Win8 licences distributed via fire sale prices and forced sales via new PCs. Of these a certain minority percentage have grown to like the interface (representing the "millions" you refer to). I assert that the majority don't as evidenced by the comments in hundreds of discussion threads and by many personal anecdotes from both new and experienced users.

Win8 is not a good PC OS. The UI is not easily discoverable, easy to use, etc. on a PC as the more classic Win7, etc. interface.

Argue all you want, but literally thousands of comments, the vast majority being negative, support my position.

You misrepresent fact.

 

[JGoat]

dfiler[/url]":35rza8za]

JGoat[/url]":35rza8za]
You misrepresent fact. There are millions of people using Win 8 on laptops/desktops who don't reject it. I'm continually amazed at the negative response to Win8 on Ars, it stands in stark contrast to what I see out in the wild. Ignoring the existence of happy Win 8 users is naive. I'm mostly intrigued by what has caused this intransigence, Win 8 is not radically different from Win 7. Your notion of a 'traditional GUI' for the last 20 years is comical, Windows has changed greatly over the past 2 decades.

And if you aren't familiar with Mac OS, there's a learning curve there too, much steeper than from Win7 to Win8. Point your friend to one of the dozen articles that highlight helpful Win-8 shortcuts and they'll be fine.

As with anything used by millions of people, there will always be both positive and negative opinions. Stating the existence of either is pointless.

What you should focusing on are the merits of arguments made on either side. It has been my observation that the well reasoned critiques are the negative ones. That criticism is typically not focused on the hurdle of learning something new, but rather the problems introduced by the poorly designed interaction most easily referred to as "metro".

My pet peeve is that the GUI no longer indicates functionality via the physical appearance of interface elements. There is absolutely no distinction between clickable or draggable regions and non-interactive regions. And that's just one of a hundred different concrete examples of exactly why I consider windows 8 to be the biggest blunder in microsoft history. Yes, even worse than vista.

Most of my responses have been to comments that make arguments against Win 8 with little merit. People that seem to have little to no exposure to Win 8 talking about how awful it is. It's interesting that you observe mostly well reasoned negative critiques, to me they appear few and far between. You have a specific example of something you don't like, that's respectable, I don't personally have a difficult time navigating or describing to users how to navigate, but I won't disparage your critique. I've stated numerous times that I understand taste/preference, but what I don't understand are people who seem to think Win 8 was designed exclusively for touch, most of those arguments demonstrate a lack of understanding or effort.

 

[AxMi-24]

dal20402[/url]":39he4nw9]

When buying an Android device or OSX, it's locked up.

How is an OS X computer (as opposed to an iOS device) locked up? You can write or load any software you want.

And Microsoft knows perfectly well that if the legacy Windows environment disappears, so does their marketshare. They can encourage people to transition to Metro, but in the end their leverage is very limited. Your paranoia is a waste of effort.

You know how some of us said that skype will be less secure once MS buys it? People like you were all "tinfoil", "paranoid fools", "conspiracy idiots" and so on. Turned out to be true. Police forces all over the place suddenly stopped whining about skype and best of all it was clearly demonstrated that MS has access to all chats.

Having 30% of every single program sold for the platform is a powerful lure for a company like MS. It's huge amount of money plus you don't have to do anything and still get a lot of money. Why do you think Adobe is going to subscription service? Free money and no work needed. People being stuck in your system is enough that they will pay to keep being able to use the programs. No need to develop new version regularly in order to get paid. Just rake in the monies.
Finally MS has showed with Metro that they don't care the slightest bit about their customers or their needs. Metro was pushed, cloud was pushed and will continue to be pushed more and more as 30% tax on every program and subscription fees are waiting in that direction.

Most of us are too lazy to do much about it (unlike the real frog that you try to slowly boil) and will be caught in the shit. There are plenty of evidence of that today (look at for example telecom world where oligopols and idiotic rules are the norm).

 

[Griffehpoo]

jackstrop[/url]":mv3j2zr9]

I don't see what the big deal is. Every single desktop is attached to a touchscreen now and this OS is called Windows Touch to denote that it's not really meant for those tiny few who still use a keyboard and mouse, right?

I, for one, enjoyed the sarcasm, Griffehpoo. Not sure why your post was buried.

I figured they just read the first sentence and were blinded by rage so they took the rest completely literally. It's an article about an OS, so if you don't take a strong stance for or against it and then yell it as loudly as possible, people don't know how to react.

With enemies you know where they stand, but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, bud.

 

[dnebdal]

Non Hic[/url]":2j2i72wm]

JGoat[/url]":2j2i72wm]...What's logical about Alt+F4, or Ctrl+Alt+Del? It takes a trivial amount of time to learn a shortcut, maybe you forget it a couple times and look it up again before it sticks, but the expectation that every shortcut be as simple as 'b for bold' is unrealistic.

De facto standard ...educate yourself.

It's not a De Jure standard, but the CUA was a significant amount of cross-company work to try and create some interface standards for every "business" computer system around at the time, and large chunks of it are still followed.

 

[Cartigan]

ror[/url]":33j3uq7b]Preach brother Peter, preach!

it's too late now, but their approach should've been 1) education, 2) visual cues, 3) an ability to add a Start button to the taskbar. the 3rd option being for admins and fussy "power users."

they have acknowledged the terrible tutorial and I hope 8.1 includes a useful walkthrough that runs after the 8.1 upgrade or when a new PC is turned on.

also, re: Metro apps, I already use Weather, Mail, News, Sports, NY Times, and The Big Picture regularly on my desktop.

Microsoft has made weather, mail, news, etc available on the desktop since Vista, when they introduced the Sidebar.

How, exactly, do you, and Peter, expect "education" to solve the problems of an OS being designed for a completely different type of computer set up? No one doesn't like Windows 8 because they aren't "educated;" they don't like it because they are educated. See your own bullet 3. Very entertaining cognitive dissonance though

 

[BadassSailor]

Exelius[/url]":39is6w0x]Ok Microsoft, let me fix your problems for you. I normally charge for this, but in your case I'll make an exception for the good of humanity.

1. Roll the default Windows 7 UI back into Windows 8.
2. For the default Windows 7 UI (let's call it the Windows Classic UI) have the start button display a miniaturized version of the Start screen.
3. Include an on-install check (and associated scripted variables for auto installs) to see if the computer Windows 8 is being installed on has a touchscreen digitizer. Also check if it has a physical keyboard. Keyboard, no digitizer = Windows Classic. Digitizer, no keyboard = Metro. Digitizer AND keyboard = ask (its ok to default to Metro, since it's obvious they want to encourage it.)
4. Let users switch between the two in a control panel.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD? Microsoft has to realize that they make products that serve multiple markets, and those users have different needs that can be approximated by hardware configurations. Businesses won't buy laptops with digitizers because they cost more and aren't necessary. Consumers will buy them because the OEMs probably won't give them a choice.

Metro may be a better UI for consumers anyway, but it blows ass for professionals who sit in Excel/AutoCAD/Photoshop all day, and Microsoft is driving them towards Macs. It's actually happening; I do work at large, corporate as hell companies, and their executives are starting to demand Macs, so IT has to support them.

I'll fix it even simpler than that:

Make the desktop active. people seem to love widgets, I understand that is the impetus for metro, but you screwed up, people don't want ONLY widgets, they want something they can glance at while doing things to get quick bits of information without opening a complete application. They don't want EVERY widget on a single screen that can only be seen in widget mode, let's make the widgets PART of the desktop background, they can be docked and locked, then you can run stuff over top of them, put them where they are most accessible, and not have them completely take over your application you are using. Hell, the old desktop gadgets were great except most weren't able to be customized, and they were too easy to accidentally click and screw up.

Make it like aero, have the background show the widgets, with a hotkey to pull it to the surface to interact with the tiles or whatever you want to call them, and you'd probably have a winner. Hell, you could even use your trademark "Surface" for the name of the interface, as in: all your tiles are floating beneath the surface of your desktop and real work, until you hit the "breach" key(sounds cool like an attack sub huh?)

Also, if the color scheme didn't look like someone projectile vomited a bag of wild berry skittles all over it, that would be swell.

 

[dal20402]

drfisheye[/url]":3uubyuup]
Here's a picture of searching apps without context switch:

It's a leak, so not sure if it will stay.

Thanks for posting!

It still takes up way more space than it needs to. Why the whole sidebar, rather than just enough space to list the results? I have better things to do with my monitor space than display thousands of purple pixels.

But holy cats is that better than the Start screen! I could use Windows 8.1 without rage if that were to stay available.

 

[pierrebuz]

chainsawcharlie[/url]":3rahnnsg]If I understood this correctly. You get this Metro UI on the server versions of Windows 8 as well?!?!

It has a metro-style start screen, but does not run metro apps (I think--at least I've never tried to run metro apps on it--I don't believe it has the store).

 

[Thisismyarsname]

I instinctively had a negative reaction to this article. I was all set to write a vitriolic comment, but I decided to reread it and make sure the article matched my bile. Here's a brief summary.

Windows 8 interface was oversimplified, but it made things harder for developers.
The start bar is bad because it doesn't appear consistently throughout metro.
Windows 8 is bad because it doesn't have a lot visual indicators for basic functions of the computer.
The start button won't let people switch out of an application, which makes it useless.
The user needs to be taught new interfaces.

So, my original bile was misplaced. This article isn't belligerent; it's just asinine.

He does everything in his power to imply that metro is terrible because it lacks visual notifications, and then says the start bar won't fix this and will be superfluous. And the problem is the start bar? He never says why the user needs to be taught a new interface? What was wrong with the existing one? He consistently brings up problems that would be better served by removing Metro, or by making it substantially closer to older versions of windows. If the user needs visual cues, I would think that a big button that can open up anything would be the first place to start.

 

[Mitlov]

tpg0007[/url]":txx5r49c]What I don't understand is why MS felt it was necessary to force Metro onto traditional desktop users? Why can't they just treat it as a separate OS? This freakish unification is not doing anyone favors. It's like some execs at Redmond really got taken in by all the desktop is dying talk of doom and panicked at doing whatever they can to make people forget there is a desktop, and failing spectacularly.

There's a lot to like about Windows 8 desktop like improved copy dialog, but any time I've to deal with Metro with just mouse/keyboard it just felt like getting punched in the nuts periodically while trying to have a good time.

They didn't want a separate OS for tablets and PCs because that creates a world where tablets and PCs are two separate worlds, where never the twain shall meet. PC OEMs are jumping at the idea of creating convertible and hybrid devices of all sorts of different form factors, and as the owner of one (a Vaio Duo 11), I think the genre-bending is fantastic.

Microsoft stumbled with the execution with parts of 8.0 for BOTH traditional PC users and tablet users. Many of those stumbles they'll be correcting in 8.1. But the idea of a hybrid PC/tablet OS, instead of two separate OSes, is a sound one.

 

[Kasoroth]

alohadave[/url]":3qbg1prp]
Windows 3.1 represent. DOS before that. There are many of us who have happily used Windows for it's entire existence. Win8 is the first time that I've felt that Microsoft abandoned us.

I used DOS (from 3.something), tried Windows 3.1 for a while but didn't really switch to Windows as my primary OS until Win95. I was relatively happy with the basic Win95/98/2K/XP style interface, but used it mainly because Windows was where the apps I needed were.

Starting in 2006, I tried Ubuntu, and very quickly switched to it full time because it had an interface (based on Gnome 2.x at the time) that fixed a bunch of my minor annoyances with Windows (Gnome application menu was neatly organized by category by default, so I didn't have to manually clean up and organize every time I installed a program. Also, the taskbar allowed you to re-order your open windows, which WinXP and earlier didn't), and also had some features that I had never really thought about, but instantly liked when I saw them (File manager combining the tree view and the folder contents, instead of a separate tree pane on the left and a folder contents view on the left, also the ability to have multiple tabs in the file manager was great).

My work flow is probably somewhat odd, but it works well for me. I use folder hierarchies to organize my mental space, and rarely use any local search functionality. For me, the file manager is my primary view into the computer "space", and essentially functions as a way of organizing my work and my thought process. In a sense, the file hierarchy itself is sort of a "document" to me, and search simply doesn't replace that. Search might help me find specific documents if I know what documents I want, but a folder hierarchy with a good tree/detail view gives me the context to know which document I want to find in the first place. Not having that context is very disorienting for me.

Search is great on the web for finding relevant information in other people's stuff, but if I have to resort to search to find my own documents, that's a sign that my mental map of my information is incomplete or erroneous. In a similar way, I don't really like turn-by turn GPS navigation, and would rather have a map (electronic map with GPS location is great), because the turn-by-turn might get me to where I want to be, but destroys my spacial awareness of where I am in the process.

I don't dislike change, but I do dislike a very common arrogance among many UI designers that seems to make them think that their changes are universally better for everyone, when in fact different people think differently, so a good UI should be flexible enough to accommodate different thought processes.

For a touch screen, you need big targets (or gestures that don't need to hit a specific target), and apparently some people like big targets even for a mouse. For me, the physical mouse target has never been a problem at all (I never understood some people's obsession with Fitts' Law), and effective interface design is more about providing output that gets the most useful information to me as quickly as possible. It's about how quickly I can gather information from the screen, make a decision about what I want to do, and determine what interaction is necessary to accomplish it. The physical act of actually performing that interaction is such a negligible part of the process that it barely seemed to be worth thinking about.

Visual cues on the screen indicating potential actions are a wonderful way to accelerate that thought process for me. The right-click context menu is one of my favorite inventions, because I can take one reflexive action (right-click) on nearly any object on the screen, and have a nice concise list of relevant possible actions presented to me right at the spot where my attention is already focused.

Win8 seems to cut back on visual cues as much as possible, relying on the user to develop a sort of "muscle memory" for common actions. The problem with this is that it assumes that everyone utilizes this sort of muscle memory when they're working. My "muscle memory" is very limited, so I rely on one simple reflex: "right click on stuff", and then rely on visual cues to navigate from there.

 

[Enigma990]

Krieger[/url]":16bz7m41]

Midnitte[/url]":16bz7m41]

ebbv[/url]":16bz7m41]I'm sure they want Metro apps to succeed, they just want Windows 8 as a whole and their stock price to succeed more.

I like when companies do bold things, and overall I'm in favor of the look and feel of Metro, but forcing a touch and gesture based interface on a desktop and on most laptops is just bad UI design.

A thousand times this, they could just as easily make the UI adapt to your device, no touch? Classic windows UI. Touch? No start button, all the metro things.

Thank you. Such a simple summary.

Microsoft removed code that could have easily accommodated both adaption to type of device and user choice for workflow.

I completely agree that Metro works well on tablets. I can only swear about it when I try it on a desktop, or laptop, or system with multiple monitors, etc.

As I keep reiterating as a Microsoft enterprise customer, they've lost me until they fix those issues. Windows 7 will be our platform of choice for a long time... which is amusing, because through the RC we were on board with Windows 8...

I have to agree with this. If you can do both why not leave both the touch based metro and the "nearly Win7 Classic" interface. Yes touch devices are hot sellers, so are mobile devices but when you need to get some work done you have no time for "learning" another interface. As an enterprise user, with over 14,000 users Win8 has nearly zero usage in our environment. Granted there are some kiosk, breakroom, conference room usages that I can see but for the vast majority I see Windows 8 being a hindrance to my users base rather than a benefit. They have taken an interface clearly, clearly designed for touch based small screen interface and shoe-horned into onto a desktop. 8.1 is a step better but, still you need a full "Desktop" style interface for daily usage. Moving from XP to Win7 was great! Better OS, in nearly every way (No more IE6!!) Still nearly 'Classic' enough that we got only minor complaints and the userbase did in fact adjust quickly.

 

[DexterTheCat]

Anecdotal comments from a Windows 8 user (on 2 computers at home):

- I don't miss the Start menu
- But I don't spend a lot of time in Metro or using Metro apps either (hmmm, if I had to make up a percentage, I would say I spend 0.0009% of time in Metro, the rest in desktop mode)
- This thing about closing off an open system and locking out small developers is garbage. When I look for software, I start with my browser, not the MS app store. Metro Explorer or Desktop Explorer, 'download.com' is still the same either way
- The hot corners do take a bit of a learning curve, but its an EASY curve... but less complicated than gesture controls. Gesture controls tend to be device or software specific, which means commands are not the same across all devices. Hot corners, you got 4 chances to get it right or wrong... and the corners don't change which means once you realize "the lower left is ALWAYS Start and the charms are on the right", you've graduated. Although the argument here would be that gesture controls are optional
- Another example of learning curve: For the longest time I didn't know how to close Metro apps. I always switched back to Desktop and closed out the running apps from there with a right click in the upper left corner. Then I learned about 'grabbing' the top of the frame and yanking down to close an app. Is it stupid that was not apparent to begin with? Sure. Is it a travesty now that I know? Not at all. Now its 2nd nature
- At the same time, none of my Win 8 habits come to me while using Win 7, XP or a non-Windows OS. I don't find myself trying to close apps with the swipe down method in Win 7. If Win 8 truly assimilated me, I would think I'd make thoughtless mistakes more often

I see both sides of the argument really, but both sides are also coming strong with a lot hyperbole for no qualified reason. Is Win8 the greatest thing in computing? No. Is it the worst? Definitely not.

 

[Jobe1983]

DrPizza[/url]":1ug4fhxj]

LarsFromMars[/url]":1ug4fhxj]I'm multimonitor. Can I run 2 metro apps on different monitors, or can I only split them on one monitor?

In 8.1, yes. In 8.0, no.

So, if I am not mistaken, I would need 6 monitors if my current workstation were to upgraded to win8.1 and all of my office apps were metro? That really sucks...

I have currently two 24 inch monitors now and have 6 applications with a total of 8 windows open on win7...

 

[ajax81]

Torrijos[/url]":3gnz2x63]
What I don't understand, is why isn't there some kind of introduction video or easily (offline) accessible manual of how it all works?

Because they can't figure it out, either

 

[BajaPaul]

If you are a desktop user without touch, StartIsBack is the slickest way to go. Leave the hot corners active. You can have best of both worlds, Desktop and Metro (or whatever they are calling it nowadays). You can dabble and learn Metro as you go along. It's not crammed down your throat. Make it optional, let the user have his choice. Give IT departments a way to manage it. That's the approach MS should have taken.

I suspect MS is just putting this button there, back on the taskbar, to screw up all the aftermarket menu systems like StartIsBack, Start8, etc. They will probably try to make it so you can't eliminate that button.

 

[JGoat]

Cartigan[/url]":3827hjh8]
How, exactly, do you, and Peter, expect "education" to solve the problems of an OS being designed for a completely different type of computer set up? No one doesn't like Windows 8 because they aren't "educated;" they don't like it because they are educated. See your own bullet 3. Very entertaining cognitive dissonance though

Education helps people get over the misguided idea that Win 8 was "designed for a completely different type of computer set up."

Every Win 8 user that I've set up has had no problem adjusting after a very brief run-down on some differences between it and 7, they come back with follow-up questions here and there, but no moreso than they did with Win 7, anecdotal, of course.

Microsoft did a disservice to their customers and themselves by not including a quick tutorial to help people get acclimated on whatever setup they have. I'm not suggesting that everyone should love Win 8, but history of Windows releases shows that there is consistently a loud population of people that don't like the change. I've worked with one IT guy who still bitches about minor things in Win 7 that he preferred in XP, you just can't please everyone. Given that Win 8's appearance at first is a strong contrast from Win 7, education was needed to help people not feel left out in the dark. I bumbled around in Win 8 for a bit, and was skeptical, if they had some instructional material to ease the transition, I think far fewer people would dislike Win 8.

 

[JGoat]

Jobe1983[/url]":nagqbjw5]

DrPizza[/url]":nagqbjw5]

LarsFromMars[/url]":nagqbjw5]I'm multimonitor. Can I run 2 metro apps on different monitors, or can I only split them on one monitor?

In 8.1, yes. In 8.0, no.

So, if I am not mistaken, I would need 6 monitors if my current workstation were to upgraded to win8.1 and all of my office apps were metro? That really sucks...

I have currently two 24 inch monitors now and have 6 applications with a total of 8 windows open on win7...

You could have the same applications open on Win 8. It would indeed be awful if all applications were meant to be Metro apps.

 

[Hey It's Todd]

Davebo[/url]":9qxx7e12]I'm sure your opinion would thrill all those hardware vendors whose warehouses are filled to bursting with desktop hardware - that no one clearly wants, Peter. Do you think 8.1 is enough to lure those folks who thought 8.0 was a disaster? I don't.

Bring back the start menu, then gradually phase it out over the next several Windows versions. Chopping everyone off at the knees was stupid all around.

How do you "phase out" the start menu gradually? Should Windows 9 only allow 10 groups? Or perhaps only allow items beginning with vowels? Yes, these are sarcastic examples, but seriously how would you eliminate the menu gradually? It's either there or it isn't, as far as I can tell.