I was waiting for Win 8 before I bought a new computer - now it looks like I need to hurry up and buy one with Win 7 before I can't get it any more.

Yeah, I'm not sold on the whole interface at all. BUT these guys are also missing things which I got pretty much straight away.

* The typing to search for things, and not finding 'device manager' et al... if they just looked then below the search box it shows that it's matched items within Apps/Settings/Files So the default is to show just the apps that match, but if he clicked on 'Settings' then it would have shown him what he was looking for without having to actually go to control panel first. And my guess is there's an option for the search results to list all three of those things. DO THEY NOT LOOK AT THE SCREEN... Arg... now they're doing it for printers. The screen says 'NO APPS MATCH YOUR SEARCH', and then it has 17 matches in settings, and some matches in files.


* Then they start bitching about Control L, which isn't a windows thing at all

* The tabs thing is definitely something to bitch about, as it makes zero logical sense to have everything hidden off screen and not be able to access things without right clicking.


Yes, it looks like Microsoft have not considered non touch interfaces enough, which is a huge oversight. And it really seems they've taken something that was working really well, Windows 7, and stuffed touch stuff over the top and then said it was all done without looking at whether it was a cohesive whole.


So I don't like the look of windows 8 for non touch devices, but these guys jump to conclusions, don't read the interface properly and assume that everyone is a power user who uses the esoteric key combos they use (even when they're specific to particular apps).

There are two things that I think are overlooked with Windows 8...

First up it's an operating system that has a UI designed specifically for touch input. The UI is obviously not intended for regular desktop usage, and is Microsoft's attempt at reaching out to the consumer market. Let's face it, Microsoft has pretty much got the business side of things covered with Windows 7, and there is still a large business user base who have yet to put migrations to Windows 7 into effect. Why use a keyboard and mouse with an operating system designed for touch input? Windows 7 will be available for a long time yet, because Microsoft know Windows 8 is a stretch too far for most businesses.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the whole desktop UI is still there, and you can run your entire Windows session in the traditional desktop without having to step in and out of the "modern UI" (aka metro) shell. The start menu is lacking, but easily recreated with a shortcut to the start menu folder in your user profile pinned to the task bar.

Yep, there'll be many geeks who wanted to persuade their bosses that everyone needs their monitors replaced with touchscreens but let's face it, Windows 8 is a consumer product and is not yet geared up for business use. Touch input is slowly creeping into the business world with many executives loving their shiny pads/tablets/slabs that make them look professional. It'll be a bit longer before tech departments start envisioning an overhaul of their entire workstation setups and are willing to embrace Windows 8.

One last thought crossed my mind... As far as touch input goes, Windows 8 is pretty sweet.

Seems like these guys are just looking for things to hate. Yeah sure there are changes and you might have to relearn some things. Shock horror. When did people become so retarded they can't change the way they do things? Hey, don't like Win8? Fine, stay with Win7. What's the big F'n deal?

>> ^Sagemind:

I was waiting for Win 8 before I bought a new computer - now it looks like I need to hurry up and buy one with Win 7 before I can't get it any more.


With how unpopular Win 8 already is, I don't think Microsoft is going to shoot themselves in the dick by not selling Win 7 any more. Much like how they changed their plans about discontinuing XP when Vista bombed.

And, like with Vista, I think MS eventually learns from commercial failure. Maybe Windows 9 will be what this should have been.

Oooor, Microsoft is just self fulfilling the old 'Every second one of their OSs is good' thing.

They made Vista for people to hate, then they released Windows 7 and people were falling over themselves to love it.

They're making Windows 8 for people to hate, then they'll release Windows 9 and people will wet themselves over how much they love it.

A lot of fuss about multiple monitors. Seriously how many ppl have more than one monitor? Like .002 percent?

>> ^Enzoblue:

A lot of fuss about multiple monitors. Seriously how many ppl have more than one monitor? Like .002 percent?


A significant amount of people and probably growing given that screens just get cheaper. I certainly welcome any analysis of how the new OS deals with that. I don't see why they should NOT mention it.

Ctrl+L is not esoteric and plenty of people use keyboard shortcuts. I don't care whether it's part of a Windows library or not but if it's widely used across existing Windows installations you'd expect to be able to use them again in the new version of Windows. But if the new interface is going to disconnect from the desktop experience I just don't understand why it has to be linked at all to the desktop. Schizophrenic indeed. The user-interface needs to be consistent and harmonious. Hasn't everyone got that memo by now?

What they're showing with the search failures is that demonstrates a lack of focus on making the desktop interface as polished and user-friendly as possible. If nothing else it appears rushed and sloppy.

I want the system to be gleaming right out of the box - I don't want to have to note all the little exceptions and workarounds . Clearly in some aspects they've put in some work with multi-monitor support and Explorer but in other areas it looks incomplete.

>> ^spoco2:

Yeah, I'm not sold on the whole interface at all. BUT these guys are also missing things which I got pretty much straight away.
The typing to search for things, and not finding 'device manager' et al... if they just looked then below the search box it shows that it's matched items within Apps/Settings/Files So the default is to show just the apps that match, but if he clicked on 'Settings' then it would have shown him what he was looking for without having to actually go to control panel first. And my guess is there's an option for the search results to list all three of those things. DO THEY NOT LOOK AT THE SCREEN... Arg... now they're doing it for printers. The screen says 'NO APPS MATCH YOUR SEARCH', and then it has 17 matches in settings, and some matches in files.

Then they start bitching about Control L, which isn't a windows thing at all
The tabs thing is definitely something to bitch about, as it makes zero logical sense to have everything hidden off screen and not be able to access things without right clicking.

Yes, it looks like Microsoft have not considered non touch interfaces enough, which is a huge oversight. And it really seems they've taken something that was working really well, Windows 7, and stuffed touch stuff over the top and then said it was all done without looking at whether it was a cohesive whole.

So I don't like the look of windows 8 for non touch devices, but these guys jump to conclusions, don't read the interface properly and assume that everyone is a power user who uses the esoteric key combos they use (even when they're specific to particular apps).

What we're going to see sadly is third-party fixes to this stuff. I bet a snap-to program will "solve" the right-clck menu problem.

W8's Metro is not designed for desktops. It's fine for touchscreens and tablets. Ugh! I use it at work for testings. It drives me nuts!

Most of this video, to me, sounded like minor griping ("I have to move the mouse to the bottom of the screen!" or "I have to do an additional click!"). Raised a few actual issues with it, but overall, I don't mind it. When I first tried Consumer Preview, it was a mess. But since then, they've done a number of improvements. I commend MS for trying something new, it's not perfect but has potential.

I'll be buying it now, and benchmarks seem to show improvements in speed over Win 7. I just hope MS improve the usability with Service Packs and updates (rather than solely security and bug fixes). It is new, it isn't perfect, it will need updates.

Check out Classic Shell on SourceForge - It "fixes" much of what should have never been broken in the first place Still probably doesn't help most enterprises, but at home it does make Windows 8 far more pitiable. I wouldn't be messing with it, except (much to my surprise) my games, especially Diablo III, perform MUCH better under Windows 8 then they did on Windows 7 on the exact same hardware. D'oh!

Is it just me or is every other major windows release utter crap. 95 was a huge leap for its time. 98 while improved in some ways, was about as stable as a drunk stilt walker. XP was of course so good, folks still refuse to use anything else. Vista was a bloated bag of design flaws, and 7 is perhaps their best software yet. Here comes windows 8.. you get me?

It's like every other major release they let the guys who spend their days in the backroom drinking coffee and mopping the floors design their software for them.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

What a train wreck. Steve Ballmer said that Windows 8 would be an OS "without compromises" meaning that it would have all of the elegance and conservation of a tablet OS with the standard work horse features of regular Windows. In practice - this doesn't work.

I like the Metro UI - works great on phones - and I expect that the Surface (RT edition) will also be great - for standard desktops though, this will be a bigger fiasco than Vista.

Microsoft has people who care about design (see Metro on phones) but unfortunately, they're not calling the shots - never let the sales guys make your product decisions.

A more fundamental question we should be asking - what does this Start menu change actually achieve? Is there some sort of workflow improvement they've identified with careful and rigorous analysis of user actions?
If so what are the precise benefits of changing what was an ingrained model of launching programs since Windows 95.
Can they point to this evidence?

And when will they ever code up some killer new productivity software that would actually make me want to upgrade?

We're heavily encouraged to dog-food because we're such a tightly integrated Microsoft shop (we have a lot of contact with MS employees, so it's a nice way to suck up to them I guess.)

The improvements to Explorer are the only thing that makes me want to go. All of my coworkers are upgrading their Windows 7 workstations to 8, but I'm not feeling it, not yet.

It's non-intuitive, requires more clicks and navigation to do simple tasks, and has poorly designed features. Most businesses won't touch this at all simply because of all the retraining they'd have to do.

>> ^Xaielao:

Is it just me or is every other major windows release utter crap. 95 was a huge leap for its time. 98 while improved in some ways, was about as stable as a drunk stilt walker. XP was of course so good, folks still refuse to use anything else. Vista was a bloated bag of design flaws, and 7 is perhaps their best software yet. Here comes windows 8.. you get me?

You forgot Windows ME was between 98 and XP.

Almost not *terrible.

Adding video to channels (Terrible) - requested by messenger.

I found that 95 was a great idea, but 98 did it better, and for me, it was more stable. I skipped ME for XP, then skipped Vista for 7, and will definitely be skipping 8, so the pattern holds for me.>> ^HugeJerk:

>> ^Xaielao:
Is it just me or is every other major windows release utter crap. 95 was a huge leap for its time. 98 while improved in some ways, was about as stable as a drunk stilt walker. XP was of course so good, folks still refuse to use anything else. Vista was a bloated bag of design flaws, and 7 is perhaps their best software yet. Here comes windows 8.. you get me?

You forgot Windows ME was between 98 and XP.

Looks like they took a page from the Linux desktops to try to make things as non-obvious as possible for someone coming from a Windows environment.

Good business plan.

My first PC was MS-DOS 5, followed by Windows 3.1, Win95, Win98, Windows 2000, XP, Vista (I never had any issues with Vista), and now Win7. I won't be bothering with Win8 due to the UX. I would love some of the under-the-hood improvements, but it's not enough to outweigh the annoyances.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Most of this video, to me, sounded like minor griping ("I have to move the mouse to the bottom of the screen!" or "I have to do an additional click!"). Raised a few actual issues with it, but overall, I don't mind it. When I first tried Consumer Preview, it was a mess. But since then, they've done a number of improvements. I commend MS for trying something new, it's not perfect but has potential.
I'll be buying it now, and benchmarks seem to show improvements in speed over Win 7. I just hope MS improve the usability with Service Packs and updates (rather than solely security and bug fixes). It is new, it isn't perfect, it will need updates.

They are critiquing an interface. Number of mouse clicks and mouse travel are pretty good ways of determining userbility. Its not really a minor gripe when you do it 100s of times a day, or an unnecessary layer simply confuses. Yes they are looking for problems with Windows8, yes thats their job. They also pointed out a few positive things, hell they even went as far to say that fullscreen start menu is a more intelligent use of screen estate. I'd certainly say its very aesthetically pleasing, but it does seem to have come at a cost. Oh, and apparently its good for touch screens which most PC users won't give 2 shits about.


I also find it commendable that MS should try new things, but it was criticism of Vista that resulted in Windows7. From what I've seen of Windows8...well it seems to me they have their priorities wrong. I'm sure it'll improve over time...then they'll call it Windows9 and ship it

This was designed for touchscreen interface, so of course it's going to be better with a touchscreen. But, the idea of a 'touchscreen monitor workstation' does not make ergonomic sense. For the majority of us who sit at a desk with their monitor in front of them, imagine experiencing this software 'as intended,' with a touchscreen monitor. Now, imagine holding your arm out with your hand arched backwards and clicking items on the desktop...for 8 hours a day. If typing on a keyboard gives people carpeltunnel issues, mousing around with this kind of setup will have long lines at all the hospitals.

Let's say we have our ideal setup to prevent all injuries. We have the monitor lay flat on the desk or at rather flat angle, and then people can mouse around on it rather comfortably. Now, your monitor is where your keyboard goes. Typing on the screen works in a pinch, but a real keyboard is certainly much better. The only setup I've seen that has successfully married a touchscreen monitor with a keyboard is the new small tablet systems, where both the monitor and the keyboard are small enough to fit on your lap at the same time. Of course, if you want to do more than surf the web or check emails, that dinky screen really doesn't do it.

Touchscreens are for toys, not for productivity.

After using a Windows Phone for a little more than a year, I can actually say that I don't like the Metro design language. I was all about it, back when I got the phone (Proof: http://braindonut.com/2010/11/20/windows-phone-7-thoughts/) and not many people can believe that I ever liked "Modern UI" or Metro, because I so very much dislike it nowadays.

I think I was just hungry for anything that was different and new. The problem was that it was like living in a dreary, international modernism, concrete building. At first, I appreciated the clean lines, the simple forms... No decoration. "Purely digital." But after a while, it started getting really boring. REALLY dreary.

Microsoft designed a set of design patterns that are made for getting in and out of your phone, quickly. They made it no nonsense - and it's elegant in that objective. But I don't want to get in and out of my phone. I want to live in that little thing. It's an extension of my daily life. And when I live somewhere, I don't want the walls all painted white and everything to be stark rectangles.

There's a big movement right now in design. Microsoft and Apple are kind of leading the opposing charges. Having existed in both worlds for a long while, I can honestly say I'd rather live in Apple's ecosystem. Sure, they could do things to make the iPhone more efficient within certain tasks, but on the whole, iPhone offers a superior experience. A lot of that is due to how much their OS is designed for an App ecosystem, while Microsoft struggles in this area. Even Windows 8 makes installed apps a pain in the ass to deal with.

So yeah, "Modern UI" is neat, different, ballsy. But I can't wait for the inevitable "Postmodern UI" response.

I wouldn't mind the changes, but the fact that you can't go back to a Windows 7 style start bar menu on the Desktop is just odd... I am willing to have Metro the default and no real way to boot to Desktop, but Desktop should function they way people are used to it, give them an easy way back to Metro, but leave Desktop functional...

The big problem is most home consumers buy their PC from Best Buy, Wal-Mart or some retail box store like that, and those PCs will all be loaded with Windows 8, so it doesn't matter if Microsoft keep Windows 7 available for businesses and people doing custom builds, most consumers will be stuck with this mess for their desktops and laptops.

About the only thing they seem to be doing right on the desktop/laptop end is finally going with a semi-more-reasonable price structure for the upgrades. $40 per PC... still not as cheap as Apple's $20 upgrade every Mac you have, but a step in the right direction. Had they managed to get ReFS better integrated across the line (able to boot from it, able to use it in removable drives and in consumer level versions... the inability to boot from it and use it in removable drives is perhaps why it isn't in the consumer version) then that would be a thing they have going for it as well.

Metro looks great for touchscreens, although the lack of ability to set where you want to split side by side apps seems odd even for touchscreens.

Looks like I'll just buy Windows 7 properly instead of getting Windows 8. A shame they have no taste or, you know, skill.