I pretty much agree. Especially for power users it sucks. Here are some strange points:
- I can't run multiple instances of visual studio...
- IE in Metro doesn't share cookies/settings with IE in desktop mode...
- Closing apps is awkward... Drag them downwards (WTF) or use ALT+F4 (no, leaving the open in the background is not an option, it will clutter my alt+tab menu).
- Start menu gone, wtf? Yes I do use it, and yes I do still click on it with my mouse to find certain things. The new search is worse... If I want 'windows update' I first have to click where I want to search for 'windows update' (and if I can't remember the name of what I'm looking for, this doesn't even work).
- I want to leave windows partially open (not fullscreen) so I can see other things on my screen (download progress, file copy progress, etc.). Again: not possible in metro.
- I can't get rid of the mandatory password/pin.
These are just a few of the annoyances I encountered.
> - Start menu gone, wtf? Yes I do use it, and yes I do still click on it with my mouse to find certain things. The new search is worse... If I want 'windows update' I first have to click where I want to search for 'windows update' (and if I can't remember the name of what I'm looking for, this doesn't even work).
How do you find anything in a windows start menu? Every application has its own naming scheme and complete control over where it puts itself in there. I consider it one of the worst long standing user experiences that still seems to be promoted/accepted for some unknown reason.
In Win7? Tap the Windows key and type the name of the program. At least for a power user, this is quite nice. It's arguably on par with Spotlight as an application launcher, with similar trade-offs (e.g. multiple matches--- which is the right one?).
I'm not a huge fan of Windows, but this is one thing that Win7 (or Vista?) substantially improved over XP.
I totally agree with this. Each new app that I install prompts a new hunt through the Programs part of the Start menu for where the app might have stashed its icons -- would they be in a new folder with the same name as the app? In a folder with the name of the publisher? In the random dump of icons at the top that don't bother to create a folder for themselves? This leads to typing in the name of the app in the search box and letting Windows do this hunting for me.
Microsoft's UX research found this as well. People prefer pinning apps Windows 7 to the taskbar over the Start menu[1].
The "hit Windows key and type name of app" scenario is preserved quite nicely with the Start screen.
Doesn't the new folder get highlighted the first time you check the start menu after installing a program? I don't find it difficult. Though the Win8 method (the new apps are just put to the far right of the start screen, so I hit winkey -> End) works fine too.
On Windows 7 and previous versions, I reorganize the start menu according to my scheme: I have folders named "Dev", "Internet", "Office", etc. and once an application is installed I just move its icon in the appropriate folder.
Also, I use ClassicShell http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/ to have a start menu with the Windows 2K look and I hide the search box, which I have no need of with my organization.
I think what he's actually complaining about there is the search - in Win7 results from apps, settings, files, etc. get combined by default, in Win8 you have to click on the individual category (or remember the keyboard shortcut to it).
You can run multiple versions of VS (2012...I haven't checked others). If you pin it to the start menu and right-click and open a new instance it will open a new instance. Agree that this is annoying. It seems like the metro start/find screen takes the focus back to an existing instance by default, rather than launching a new instance. For a user with a fairly simple mental model of how things work this is probably a good thing, but for more advanced users it is a problem.
From some of the other comments it looks like shift+click on the metro start screen works to open a new instance (which is the same as the task bar in Win7,8)
Disregard my questions. I just skimmed the section on windows management and it is as I feared. I don't really understand the Metro "intention(?)" for pcs(and I actually use and like Gnome 3 as my daily driver).
I haven't used Windows 8 yet so pardon my possible silly questions.
What's the experience of a Metro app on a large screen monitor...always fullscreen? The app is either running or not? Multiple Metro apps displayed/running simultaneously? Is Metro on by default for "pcs?"
Yes, metro apps are fullscreen. No menu bar or anything like that. So if you have some background tasks you won't be able to see if they're finished...
And apps can be suspended or closed. Suspended is something like 'sleep mode'. They're still in your alt-tab menu (you can directly launch them).
And regarding the last question: yes: metro is the default. When you boot up Windows you will see metro. And as far as I know there is no longer the option to remove it. Every time you need something you will return back to the metro start screen.
Apps with background tasks are generally supposed to pop up a notification when they're done (the APIs for the new notification popups are available for use by desktop apps too btw, although admittedly they probably won't be widely implemented for a while if ever).
What's the experience of a Metro app on a large screen monitor...always fullscreen? The app is either running or not? Multiple Metro apps displayed/running simultaneously? Is Metro on by default for "pcs?"
Yes. Yes. Sort of. Yes, and you can't turn it off.
You can run 2 metro apps at a time. 1 in fullscreen with the other "docked" in a limited mode to the side.
Interesting. So doesn't sound possible to divide the screen such as for an editor/Word on one half and to read a PDF or use a browser on the other half?
Running multiple instances of VS (or any other desktop app) should work the same as before (shift-click on taskbar), not sure what was happening there.
Once the app is already running and visible in the taskbar, you can right-click the icon in the taskbar, and click the link with the same name as the app (e.g. for Google Chrome, the link I'm talking about says "Google Chrome"). This will open a new instance of the app.
Wait, are you opening it from the Start screen? That switches by default instead of opening a new instance, but for desktop apps there's an app command (right click) to open a new window. I'd still recommend shift-click from the taskbar though (same as in Win7).
I think this may be an issue that will be popping up a lot, people thinking that everything has to be started from the start screen when everything works just as it always has from the desktop (minus a start menu, which is actually the start screen).
I think the issue here is more that he probably didn't know how to start a new instance from the taskbar in Win7 - which is understandable as it's not exactly obvious - and was used to doing it from the start menu. However, you could make a case that switching to an existing instance is the more mainstream expected behavior and starting a new instance is a bit more advanced, so it's ok for it to be tucked away a bit more (but convenient enough once you know how).
Having extensively used Windows 8, I completely agree with every point raised in this article. Using Windows 8 on the desktop might actually be migraine inducing. All of these little pain points build-and-build to utter frustration.
What I find disappointing is that Microsoft has essentially stopped trying to innovate on the desktop. They built a tablet OS, slapped it on top of their desktop OS, and are forcing desktop users into it to ensure they get the eye balls they require build a new app ecosystem.
Interesting that most of this boils down to 'its different'. Learning a new window system is always taxing on the brain because our brains code repeated movements into our muscles so we don't have to think about them, when you change the rules and have to re-train muscle memory its harsh. I give the guy credit for giving it 8 months.
That said, on the 'preview' edition I loaded you could simply turn off the UI formerly known as Metro which gave you a kind of windows 7 plus experience. Nothing I tried forced me to use the Metro UX if it was disabled, now I'm curious if this is not true in the released version.
I agree. Windows XP which is still floating around in so many places is actually not all that easy to grasp for someone who has not used a computer before.
I recently installed Ubuntu on a laptop for my grandmother who is in her 80's and has never used a computer before. All she wanted to do was to type up her memoirs. When I told people I was installing a linux distribution for her, everybody told me how difficult it would be for her to use.
In reality, this is for a person who constantly holds the mouse upside down, doesn't understand the concept of clicking and dragging to highlight text, etc. Now try to tell her to launch an application by:
- clicking on the little "Start" menu
- navigating through a menu of tiny items
- reading each one as she goes
- making sure to not accidentally click on something which will open up the wrong program
- click on the little "x" in the opposite corner when she accidentally opens up the wrong program
- etc...
Her Ubuntu machine automatically opens up gedit in full screen when she turns the computer on, autosaves every minute, commits to version control every five minutes (in case she accidentally deletes everything then it autosaves) and turns off when she closes the laptop lid.
Yes, you could do this in windows, yes, the default interaction paradigm of Gnome 2 is similar to windows, Gnome 3 is strange, unity is different, etc.
But the point is, if you have never seen any of them before, they are frustrating and difficult. I still don't know how to correctly navigate a save dialog in Windows 7 on the rare occasion I'm using Windows. I have been using Gnome3 for a while now, and I finally understand how it works and is meant to be used (for the most part). That doesn't mean I think its awesome, bit it gets the job done.
Now that I've been using it for a while, my brain doesn't have to work so hard to get stuff done.
I understand what you mean. My mom has been running Ubuntu for 4 years now and loves it. She handled the Unity transition well too. Last year however, her hard drive died and my cousin let her borrow a windows machine. She hated that thing. I didn't hear the end of how unfriendly and how annoying everything is. I was laughing because that is exactly what I was hearing from ex-Windows users trying to use a Linux desktop.
I still don't know how to correctly navigate a save dialog in Windows 7
Seriously? Maybe you are being purposefully difficult because you have an emotional dislike of Windows? I think Gnome is ok, but it unquestionably has a steeper learning curve than windows, especially when you get outside simple things (like save dialogs).
Perhaps my choice of words was poor. I actually quite liked most of Windows 7 when I installed it on my partners laptop. However, I still get extraordinarily frustrated trying to get to the folders I want in a Windows Vista/7 save dialog.
Sometimes I feel like "Computer" is the top directory, sometimes "Desktop" feels like the top directory, and sometimes "Documents" is the top directory. Then there is the ill-defined (at least to the casual user) "Libraries". I miss the "up" button I am used to from many other contexts. The bar up the top which tells me my current location is thoroughly confusing to me. When I click the right arrow next to "Documents" when I am in the documents library, it shows what seems to be the locations defined by the library (My and Public documents). But when I am in a sub folder of Documents, clicking the right arrow next to Documents shows me the list of folders for the specific part of the library I am in (e.g. subfolders of My or Public documents).
No doubt these are all implemented like this for some very good reasons. I also have no doubt that if I used it as my primary OS, I would adapt relatively quickly. But for someone who only uses Windows to file my tax return and to occasionally help out my partner, I get frustrated.
I don't think you read the same article I did. He mentioned several things that appear to be major bugs, apps that are missing so many key features that they're practically downgrades (like Mail), and things that were removed for no apparent reason (like a clock).
If all of that is just "different", perhaps you're right: Windows 8 has a different bug count than Windows 7, a different number of frustrated users, a different standard for what makes sensible software and ultimately a different idea about what's worth that kind of money.
"There are certain things that you do with your PC every day that should form the basis of the operating system. Email. Instant Message. Calendars. Media Playing. All of these functions in Windows 8 are carried out through Metro apps, and they are universally awful. There are no desktop apps included that do a similar job."
And I thought, you didn't open up a web browser? I do all of those thing on the web and none of them in the OS's UI. Well maybe not media playing.
Whether you think it's a good reason is up to you, but the reason the system clock isn't on screen persistently (it appears if you move into the corner) while a Metro app is active is because of the core design principle that says apps get 100% of the screen and system chrome gets 0%. Of course apps are free to incorporate their own clocks :)
Interesting that most of this boils down to 'its different'
I'm not sure that's fair. I'm reading three types of complaint that aren't simply "it's different":
1. It takes more steps to do things. That's not just different; it makes the UX for those tasks objectively worse, at least for a person who already knew how to do them.
2. The UI is designed for touch and is inefficient with a mouse.
3. Useful functionality, such as being able to have certain types of applications side by side or run multiple instances has been removed.
1. Valid concern if adding an extra mouse click here and there bothers you
2. Only a concern if you think that everything has to be done from the start screen/MetroUI. Everything feels just as it did in Win7 from the desktop in my experience (except Win8 is a bit faster).
3. Once again, only a concern if you intend to only use Metro apps. Windows on the desktop work just as they did in Win7 and multiple instances can be opened with a shift-click on the taskbar or right-click -> click on icon, just like Win7.
Honestly, Windows 8 has been my daily driver since consumer preview came out and after a little time acclimating myself to some of the new nuances, I found myself feeling much more productive in Windows 8 than I was in Windows 7. However, maybe that is just me and I pick up on newer UI/UX better than all of these people that have been complaining and put in the time to give it a try.
Do you work for Microsoft? Your comment:
"Valid concern if adding an extra mouse click here and there bothers you"
sure makes me think so. Yes, adding an extra click here and there is annoying, especially when it didn't add any extra functionality.
I agree with that it doesn't have to be different and that PCs are not tablet, at least on the preview version you could set it to be just like Win7. So I was reading through the article to see if the OP had actually run it in old school mode and still found it unusable. I can't tell. Maybe they will post here.
"The Metro interface is Windows 8. The desktop that you’re used to is also there, but it’s built as a separate app. Think of it this way: Metro is the shell. The desktop is an app within that shell. If you want to start Steam, you’ll want to launch the Desktop app, and then launch Steam.
This is insanity. This is Windows 8."
He then goes on to mention how the desktop is a second-class citizen, most programs default to the metro version, and core OS features are metro-only.
That's not actually true BTW - desktop apps like Steam or whatever get pinned to the Start screen just like other apps, so you can just click on their tiles to open them directly.
There's not an "old school mode" in that the Start screen will always replace the Start menu and there's no way to reverse that without installing third-party software for it. You can choose to only run desktop apps (and set the file associations to desktop apps) and the experience will be 95% the same, though.
There is no "old school mode" left. There are third party utilities to bring back things like the classic start menu, to disable booting into Metro, etc., but it cannot simply be disabled.
You could boil these observations down to "it's different," but that doesn't mean you're not also allowed to come to the conclusion that "it's awful" (or on the flip-side that "it's great"). Nobody would deny that the Windows 8/"Metro" UI and UX is different. Every window system is different, some more than others, and each has it's own pros and cons. Some people might like the Finder in Mac OSX, and some might hate it. It doesn't matter whether the hate is legitimate or defensible or not, what matters is whether your UI/UX and overall OS is compelling enough to convince users that it's worth switching from what they know, or simply worth putting up with in the bigger picture. I would also argue that it doesn't matter whether a user unfair-ably hates it after barely/ignorantly using it, or comes to the conclusion that they hate it after using it thoroughly for 8 months. First impressions are so important - not many people have the time or interest to really dig into a new UI/UX paradigm to find out what's it all about and whether it can improve their workflow. If you fail the first impression by not driving your users in the right direction or giving them some sense of excitement, most times you don't get another chance.
I think where Windows 8 fails is that it doesn't provide me with any compelling reasons why I would want to upgrade from Windows 7, or migrate from Mac OSX or Linux. It doesn't give me any sense of excitement - the paradigm shift from Windows 7 to 8 is not at all like the experience of shifting from something like a Blackberry to an iPhone. I agree with the author - I don't like the Metro start menu, I prefer the old start menu. Maybe that's just me clinging to an old beat-in paradigm, but I don't really see any benefits in the new paradigm. I don't like the full-screen metro apps with limited window management capability and hidden OS "chrome" (clock). I don't like having to use touch-like gestures or memorize new keyboard shortcuts for using all the wonky new features in the OS that don't seem to provide me with any real compelling value. The Windows 8 "optimists" that try to defend the OS by listing out keyboard shortcuts or alternate ways to navigate to different areas, or ways to "hide" Metro UX are kind of missing the point. Most people that provide a laundry list of what they hate are not looking for suggestions or tutorials - the OS has already failed to direct them, and they've simply come to the conclusion that they don't like it.
I think that if you believe the goal of Windows 8 is to compel people to move from 7 to 8, you are missing the point. The goal of Windows 8 is to sell new hardware, specifically touch hardware.
Is that at the expense of the desktop and enterprise users? Only time will tell, but if the touch hardware ends up not working out, are they going to still have the desktop users to fall back on? I guess they probably will because they'll have the people stuck on XP and 7.
Also, if the point is to convince me to buy Windows 8 touch hardware, it has failed there too because the desktop experience was so uncompelling for me, I have no interest in exploring other options.
For one final edit - if they don't want me to upgrade from 7 to 8 on a desktop, what's the reasoning behind the massive price cuts for upgrades. If I bought a PC in the last year or so, I can upgrade from 7 to 8 for $15. Or if I have an old XP machine, I can upgrade for $40. If they don't care about non-touch desktop and laptop users, why would they slash the prices like this?
First, I think that the idea that Microsoft is introducing 8 at the expense of desktop and enterprise users is a straw man argument. I have not heard any reasonable explanation as to why this is the case. All the apps used in 7 still work in 8, and the desktop remains largely unchanged in 8 from the previous version. In addition, the new app model works fine in the current security framework. So if anything, it gives enterprises (built on Windows technologies) a more secure way to deploy touch based apps.
And, by me saying the primary goal is to sell hardware, does not exclude upgrades being a secondary or tertiary goal. Microsoft wants the Windows 8 ecosystem to be as big as possible, hence the cheap price. They want to shift the conversation from devices sold (e.g. iPad, Nexus) to total ecosystem coverage. But, that number is less effective if everyone is just booting into the desktop.
I get what you are saying though, I was also disappointed by the desktop experience. But, in retrospect, I think the desktop was pretty good in 7, so I think the new visual options are a nice addition.
Not really. The new hardware is selling itself already. The goal of Windows 8 is to ensure that Microsoft is still relevant in a world where that hardware dominates the computing marketplace.
I think the biggest flaw is that the help system is not a tile on the main screen.
Like the author, I was baffled when I wanted to shut the thing down. I found the thing that shows all the applications on the system, and noticed one of them was a help application. The help application was able to tell me how to shut down. I never would have found it without that help, as it would never even occur to me to look in the settings.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the new interface is actually good. Regardless, it is sufficiently different from what people are familiar with that people are going to have trouble figuring out things and need help--even basic things like shutting down the computer. Finding help needs to be trivial and obvious.
The problem is that they came up with a novel (and hopefully better) approach to UI that works wonders on smartphones because it's a greenfield - there is a new, suitable HID (touchscreen) and no legacy or broken interaction models to support in the first place.
Then they tried to port it to desktop, where touch interfaces make no sense whatsoever and still keep a ridiculous amount of backwards compatibility with everything, as usual. The obvious result lacks conceptual integrity and is so full of compromises that it doesn't even make sense.
I'd like to see the author of this piece respond to the criticisms in the "uninstalling" article. Some of the answers will be "it's a lot better with a touchscreen," of course, but I'd like an experienced user to weigh in.
Meanwhile, the Mac OS X users are buying magic trackpads in droves, scrolling and swiping between their windows and virtual desktops with ease, and enjoying non-crippled desktop apps...
A lot of the awkward controls in Windows 8 seem to stem from Microsoft's lack of a real multi-touch input device... hovering in screen corners, dragging screen edges, etc.
I actually really like Windows 8, and, at the same time, agree with a lot of the points that the author makes in the article. I think the big difference is that I am actually really excited that Windows 8 is a touch first OS. Yes, this makes it less than ideal to use with my existing hardware. But, I am completely fine with that. I plan on upgrading my mouse on my desktop to a multi-touch mouse and I plan on taking advantage of the new track pad gestures when drivers become available. Long term, I do not imagine ever owning another device that does not support touch. In my opinion, if you are viewing Windows 8 through the eyes of current day hardware, you are missing the point.
I have no problems with Windows 8. Yes the start button is now full-screen, yet I hardly have to use it -- but I actually find it useful so I do. I am not confused in the slightest by Metro, just as I'm not confused by OS X's gestures, launchpads dashboards and mission controls.
With every Windows release these rants come, yet with actual real world use I find all of the problems have easy workarounds so what's left is a faster, leaner, smarter operating system.
It's funny how frustrated the few Windows 8 boosters are starting to sound. Either Microsoft is recruiting astroturfers from YouTube comment threads, or their evangelists' vocabularies are regressing to that of a 7th-grader.
Guys, guys. Listen. Calling people "dumba$$" is not going to convince anyone to use your new OS. OK?
Nor will demanding that people learn new keyboard shortcuts in the year 2012.
What are you comparing to? Windows 95 was a lot better than Windows 3.1 (or 3.11 for Workgroups), and 100% compatible with 16 bit apps as well as 32 bit apps.
98 was a refinement, but also introduced FAT32. 98SE was rock solid refinement on that. (FAT32 technically came in an OEM release of Windows 95 but wasn't available to most users.)
NT 3.1 isn't on your list but it wasn't particularly good because it was really a 1.0 release. NT 3.51 was excellent.
Windows 2000 was rock solid. You could do suspend & hibernate reliably.
XP is notable because it was effectively a merge of the compatibility of the Windows 9x line, with the kernel of the Windows NT/2K line. The UI changes were not widely lauded, but were only superficial and easy to turn off.
Vista had many good technical changes under the hood especially in the kernel. Up to that point things had been engineered for being severely resource constrained. For example the default disk cache size in XP is 10MB! Networking was redone etc. It did finally take advantage of "excess" hardware. There were also UI changes that were pervasive, but still very rough, so you had to use them.
Windows 7 was a refinement of Vista, getting rid of remaining baggage and with the polishing the UI changes feels more usable.
Windows 8 has core architectural changes that don't matter to x86 users (support for ARM), and has structural UI changes to support a different application architecture (apps that will run on x86 and ARM and desktop and tablet). There is no one today who has apps they need to run on x86/ARM/desktop/tablet, but if Microsoft didn't put this support in then the apps would never exist - they had to start first to solve the chicken and egg problems. And it turns out that Microsoft would like its own apps to run across the x86/ARM/desktop/tablet range (think Office, Outlook etc). Anything they did would be problematic. If they let you run in pure "desktop" mode only, then all system apps have to be implemented twice - once for desktop and once for tablet. So you end up with a chimera of desktop and tablet, but every user will have a learning curve. However once over that learning curve they will be productive on other Microsoft properties such as the phones.
There is no easy way to do what Microsoft is doing which is a major overhaul of application architecture with all eyes on the future, not the past. Everyone else who has ever done it has had massive complaints too - MacOS X wasn't well received, neither was Gnome 3 or KDE 4. The developers all kept at and several point releases later it becomes the new norm.
I think technically Win2K lived in the branch known as 'NT' so there was Windows NT, W2K, and then merged back at the Vista point (and made usable by Win7) point. The timeline as presented would be accurate for a 'home' desktop user.
And that was:
* NT 3.1 - Had Windows 3.x type UI
* NT 3.5 - Had Windows 3.x type UI
* NT 3.51 - Had Windows 3.x type UI
* NT 4 - Had Windows 9x type UI
* Windows 2000 (NT 5)
* Windows XP (NT 5.1 - XP x64 was 5.2 though)
* Windows Server 2003/R2 (NT 5.2)
* Windows Vista/Server 2008 (NT 6.0)
* Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 (NT 6.1)
* Windows 8/Server 2012 (NT 6.2)
I remember NT 4 was used on the main server(s) at my highschool.
I think it's safe to say, XP was the first consumer/"home" user version. Though, Windows 2000 (Professional) was used in corporate environments.
The list provided focuses on consumer oriented OS's. Windows 2000 was a decidedly business only OS. They didn't merge as the user facing front of windows till XP.
I'd further break down Windows 98. My experience with the initial version was that it was not reliable. Microsoft actually released a Second Edition that I considered quite capable. The SE Version also should be considered when USB on a consumer OS really became usable.
I also recall many disliked XP in it's early days(until SP2) and Windows 98 users were "never going to upgrade." Funny, how things change and yet remain the same.
- I can't run multiple instances of visual studio...
- IE in Metro doesn't share cookies/settings with IE in desktop mode...
- Closing apps is awkward... Drag them downwards (WTF) or use ALT+F4 (no, leaving the open in the background is not an option, it will clutter my alt+tab menu).
- Start menu gone, wtf? Yes I do use it, and yes I do still click on it with my mouse to find certain things. The new search is worse... If I want 'windows update' I first have to click where I want to search for 'windows update' (and if I can't remember the name of what I'm looking for, this doesn't even work).
- I want to leave windows partially open (not fullscreen) so I can see other things on my screen (download progress, file copy progress, etc.). Again: not possible in metro.
- I can't get rid of the mandatory password/pin.
These are just a few of the annoyances I encountered.