Is Microsoft 'Missing the Mark' on new OS's?

[Mem]

I still feel Microsoft will continue with a hybrid OS for Win9,probably hybrid OS will be like Win95 was ie went throught several stages to Win7,so it'll keep getting more refined and users will eventually get comfortable with it.

Win8 is a change from the old desktop OS and very fair to say it will take awhile before they get that great hybrid OS that most people will like.


Personally I don't find it any hassle or issue at the moment ,however still looking forward to what they do with Win9 .

 

[blankslate]

Looks like MS will allow people to choose between a Metro-centric UI style or one that is more like a Windows 7 style desktop.

Removing user choice in the UI was the biggest flaw, really perhaps the only flaw in Windows 8 (aside from anecdotal driver issues).

For some it was a minor flaw (or not really one at all) for others it was big enough to turn to 3rd party programs to bring back a windows 7 like (or earlier) interface or just stay with Win 7.
Enough people fell into the latter category that it took a while for a good OS underneath the UI to surpass the usage numbers than that "disaster" Vista has.

Other than the UI (and how you feel about aeroglass) Win 8 was in all other categories an improvement on Windows 7

I think that it's doubtful that MS will repeat the mistake that they made with Win 8 as the person who headed the OS department during Windows 8's development and release is no longer at MS and his favored people are not involved with OS development at MS anymore either.

Ideally their OS should detect if you have a touchscreen and offer to make Metro the default UI and if you don't have a touch screen attached to your desktop just default to a windows 7 style UI.
Of course the settings to choose either would be easily found in the control panel.

Of course the nature of computing is changing and we'll have to see if MS can move fast enough to get enough mobile computing devices to adopt their OS software.



...

 

[bgt]

Honestly I think Microsoft didn't miss the mark at all concerning Win8. They nailed it and 8.1 refined it even better on the desktop side.

This:thumbsup: 8.1 is the best OS they ever made.

 

[Ketchup]

Looks like MS will allow people to choose between a Metro-centric UI style or one that is more like a Windows 7 style desktop.

Removing user choice in the UI was the biggest flaw, really perhaps the only flaw in Windows 8 (aside from anecdotal driver issues).

For some it was a minor flaw (or not really one at all) for others it was big enough to turn to 3rd party programs to bring back a windows 7 like (or earlier) interface or just stay with Win 7.
Enough people fell into the latter category that it took a while for a good OS underneath the UI to surpass the usage numbers than that "disaster" Vista has.

Other than the UI (and how you feel about aeroglass) Win 8 was in all other categories an improvement on Windows 7

I think that it's doubtful that MS will repeat the mistake that they made with Win 8 as the person who headed the OS department during Windows 8's development and release is no longer at MS and his favored people are not involved with OS development at MS anymore either.

Ideally their OS should detect if you have a touchscreen and offer to make Metro the default UI and if you don't have a touch screen attached to your desktop just default to a windows 7 style UI.
Of course the settings to choose either would be easily found in the control panel.

Of course the nature of computing is changing and we'll have to see if MS can move fast enough to get enough mobile computing devices to adopt their OS software.



...

I don't disagree that down under there are improvements, but I wonder if it really matters to the majority of people who find it more difficult to operate?

 

[blankslate]

I don't disagree that down under there are improvements, but I wonder if it really matters to the majority of people who find it more difficult to operate?

Well I watch the Windows Weekly video pod(stream)cast on twit.tv and all indications are from what the two Windows bloggers' sources are that Windows 9 isn't a kernel update like Vista was from XP.

Rather than that it'll be a tune up and ui refresh. Like Win7 was for Vista.

But seeing as how Win8 is plenty fast it'll be more of a ui refresh.

There will be more likely than not a traditional start menu and the full screen apps will be resizable and the user won't forced to run them full screen anymore.

It looks like that, unlike some who defend the choice to make metro mandatory, MS has gotten the message and will provide more of a UI choice than just "You vill use Metro, Achtung!!"

So yeah I don't think the take metro or leave it was a wise choice for MS and the fact that Windows 9 seems to be coming out of the gate rather soon as Windows 7 did it looks like MS is trying to make sure they change direction asap.


Leo Laporte who was a host for some shows on Tech TV started his own internet streamcasting company.
www.twit.tv
imo there are some good shows there.

....

 

[ninaholic37]

Well I watch the Windows Weekly video pod(stream)cast on twit.tv and all indications are from what the two Windows bloggers' sources are that Windows 9 isn't a kernel update like Vista was from XP.

Rather than that it'll be a tune up and ui refresh. Like Win7 was for Vista.

But seeing as how Win8 is plenty fast it'll be more of a ui refresh.

There will be more likely than not a traditional start menu and the full screen apps will be resizable and the user won't forced to run them full screen anymore.

It looks like that, unlike some who defend the choice to make metro mandatory, MS has gotten the message and will provide more of a UI choice than just "You vill use Metro, Achtung!!"

So yeah I don't think the take metro or leave it was a wise choice for MS and the fact that Windows 9 seems to be coming out of the gate rather soon as Windows 7 did it looks like MS is trying to make sure they change direction asap.


Leo Laporte who was a host for some shows on Tech TV started his own internet streamcasting company.
www.twit.tv
imo there are some good shows there.

....

Sounds like they should just call it Windows 8.2 then. I don't think Windows 9 is going to be anything special to look forward to either, most sources I read say that MS is just going to focus on merging the phone/tablet/desktop together even more, and that's about it, so it will probably be another disappointment for desktop users. Same with Windows 10 (or whatever the next version is) merging more into the cloud. If you prefer Windows 7, you'll probably be better off keeping it until 2020 and not anticipating anything Microsoft related.

 

[blankslate]

Sounds like they should just call it Windows 8.2 then. I don't think Windows 9 is going to be anything special to look forward to either, most sources I read say that MS is just going to focus on merging the phone/tablet/desktop together even more, and that's about it, so it will probably be another disappointment for desktop users. Same with Windows 10 (or whatever the next version is) merging more into the cloud. If you prefer Windows 7, you'll probably be better off keeping it until 2020 and not anticipating anything Microsoft related.

Windows 7 wasn't that much of a change from the Vista Kernel. Other than performance tweaks and a new UI.

And it's considered one of MS's best OS releases.

If Windows 9 isn't that much more tune up of the Win8 OS with an option to select a Windows 7 like UI there's not reason that it can't be successful.

There's a stink on 8.x deservedly or not. So relabeling 8.2 to Windows 9 makes some sense. It worked for Windows 7.


There are sources out there indicated that yes you will see the return of a start menu and not just a start button and that Metro apps will be resizable.



.....

 

[akugami]

I don't think MS has had much major misses in terms of OS's goes.

Win 3.1 -> Win95 == This brought huge improvements in OS usability (granted a lot of it borrowed from Apple)
Win95 -> 98 == Not a huge change.
Win98 -> ME == ME was a disaster but not from UI, just general instability
Win98 -> XP == XP was a huge huge improvement over the Win95/98 in OS power and usability
XP -> Vista == Vista was not bad. The OS was solid. The downfall of Vista was two things, lack of driver support and MS caving in to hardware OEM's who pushed "Vista Ready" stickers onto computers that were clearly not Vista ready. But the OS itself was fine.
Vista -> Win7 == Win7 was a subtle but big improvement in UI compared to Vista. For the most part, it just made things buttery smooth compared to previous Windows OS's.
Win7 -> Win8 == Win8 just made the UI for desktop users different without being an improvement. It is a valid argument that Win8 made things harder for desktop users without any major improvements from a workflow standpoint. A real miss for power users. Probably not a big deal for home users.

From what I can see, the only real misses that you can pin 100% on MS has been WinME and Win8. Vista gets a pass partially because it was mainly a lack of driver support that gave it a bad name.


As for Win8, it's not that Metro as UI is bad for touch based devices, but I'm on a 27" 2560x1440 screen at home, not to mention dual monitors. It's not friggin touch. I have the space to put multiple windows (applications or work windows) up on one screen and frequently do. It's not uncommon for me to have a web browser, Excel, Word, and the software I'm testing up all at the same time. Why does Win8 insist on some apps like Internet Explorer and MS Paint being full screen? This just completely kills my workflow.

And the Windows 8 Start Screen made it more difficult to navigate my list of installed software. I don't know how in the world anyone thought it was a great idea to list every single app on the screen in small icons. And anyone who has a lot of software knows, the "installed software folder" usually contains a few items most don't want to see like help files or lesser used helper applications which are normally hidden on Win7 because the friggin OS knows you rarely access them. How the hell people call that an improvement compared to Windows 7, I don't know. Windows 8.1 was a huge improvement but only cause it doesn't automatically dump every damn application in the Start Screen.

And while I'm not averse to change, some things on Win8 were changed just to shoehorn in the Metro design. It wasn't changed to be more efficient. When you look at it in terms of number of steps or usability wise, the changes were not better. If it was a change that created efficiencies or at least could be argued to be a more logical UI design (Ribbon interface), that's one thing but Win8 was just a huge "you're going to use Metro and like it" thing and that generally doesn't go well with the Windows/*nix crowd.

 

[bbhaag]

As for Win8, it's not that Metro as UI is bad for touch based devices, but I'm on a 27" 2560x1440 screen at home, not to mention dual monitors. It's not friggin touch. I have the space to put multiple windows (applications or work windows) up on one screen and frequently do. It's not uncommon for me to have a web browser, Excel, Word, and the software I'm testing up all at the same time. Why does Win8 insist on some apps like Internet Explorer and MS Paint being full screen? This just completely kills my workflow.

What are you talking about....none of those programs take up the whole screen. Here's a crappy screen cap I just took a few minutes ago. Win8 desktop works just like all its predecessors.

 

[bbhaag]

And the Windows 8 Start Screen made it more difficult to navigate my list of installed software. I don't know how in the world anyone thought it was a great idea to list every single app on the screen in small icons. And anyone who has a lot of software knows, the "installed software folder" usually contains a few items most don't want to see like help files or lesser used helper applications which are normally hidden on Win7 because the friggin OS knows you rarely access them. How the hell people call that an improvement compared to Windows 7, I don't know. Windows 8.1 was a huge improvement but only cause it doesn't automatically dump every damn application in the Start Screen.

Ok wow this is not right either. It's not that I'm picking you man but it just sounds like you're having a hard time navigating 8 efficiently. Please keep in mind that I am just trying to help. If I come off as condescending or negative that is not my intention.

The Start Screen is just for your most commonly used programs not every program on your PC. You can right click on a tile and unpin it from the Start Screen. You can also do this for those help files you are talking about. Just right click and unpin it's really that easy.

For example lets say you use Paint but on average you only use it once a month. You don't want a Paint tile on your Start Screen because you don't use it that much right? So you right click on the Paint tile and unpin it from the Start Screen. Poof ! Gone from the Start Screen. One less tile taking up space. YAY!

So now you might ask "Ok so now that I unpinned Paint how do I open it?". Well if you noticed when you go to the Start Screen if you mouse over the lower left corner their is an arrow pointing down. If you click that arrow it leads you to the App Screen. The App Screen is were you can gain access to all your less commonly used programs.

Now I know this sounds drawn out and long winded and you might say "Look at how inefficient that is to do it the Win8 way.", but the truth is if you're doing it in real time it takes seconds to find the programs you use the most.

 

[lxskllr]

.

Now I know this sounds drawn out and long winded and you might say "Look at how inefficient that is to do it the Win8 way.", but the truth is if you're doing it in real time it takes seconds to find the programs you use the most.

It's not much different than earlier Windows. You pin your most used programs to the Start menu, and the rest are in All Programs.

 

[pmv]

What are you talking about....none of those programs take up the whole screen. Here's a crappy screen cap I just took a few minutes ago. Win8 desktop works just like all its predecessors.

Now I don't have win8, so I might be wrong, but based on what other negative comment has been, I presume the previous commenters issue is that some file types are linked by default to metro apps, and so you end up launching the metro version which does indeed run full-screen.

Obviously that can be fixed by changing the default application to be the proper windows desktop one, but, _if_ the complaints I've seen here are correct, it seems again like MS annoying desktop users for no great benefit to anyone by not having things accessed within the desktop automatically default to desktop applications.

Also I note the dialog that pops up asking if which application you want to use seems to involve yet another eruption of Metro aesthetics onto the desktop. Personally I find the mixing of different design styles in Win8 to be off-putting.

 

[pmv]

It's not much different than earlier Windows. You pin your most used programs to the Start menu, and the rest are in All Programs.

Except it is is signifcantly different, as the 'all programs' screen is a flat listing of every program, with no heirarchy and nesting. And also requires you to switch to a completely different screen. That's what people who dislike win8 don't like, so its a bit silly to insist its 'not much different'. It clearly _is_ different, that's kind of the whole point.

 

[pmv]

Ok wow this is not right either. It's not that I'm picking you man but it just sounds like you're having a hard time navigating 8 efficiently. Please keep in mind that I am just trying to help. If I come off as condescending or negative that is not my intention.

The Start Screen is just for your most commonly used programs not every program on your PC. You can right click on a tile and unpin it from the Start Screen. You can also do this for those help files you are talking about. Just right click and unpin it's really that easy.

For example lets say you use Paint but on average you only use it once a month. You don't want a Paint tile on your Start Screen because you don't use it that much right? So you right click on the Paint tile and unpin it from the Start Screen. Poof ! Gone from the Start Screen. One less tile taking up space. YAY!

So now you might ask "Ok so now that I unpinned Paint how do I open it?". Well if you noticed when you go to the Start Screen if you mouse over the lower left corner their is an arrow pointing down. If you click that arrow it leads you to the App Screen. The App Screen is were you can gain access to all your less commonly used programs.

Now I know this sounds drawn out and long winded and you might say "Look at how inefficient that is to do it the Win8 way.", but the truth is if you're doing it in real time it takes seconds to find the programs you use the most.

But that assumes everyone has the same pattern of using applications - a small number used all the time and then a whole load of others that they almost never use and that they are content to have buried in an incredibly long horizontally-scrolling, multi-screen list that includes uninstallers and help files and the like.

Personally I think the start menu style nested heirarchy works better if you use a large number of things about equally. The Win8 method is tablet and touch-focussed and is less good for the desktop, I don't see why some are so determined to try and deny that.

(Edit - I admit I also don't quite understand why I feel compelled to argue with the win8 defence team either. It just seems to me that they start with the conclusion - that you WILL like Win8 or you must be scared of change/unable to learn new things/working in the wrong way - and then try and justify it, and I don't understand why).

 

[bbhaag]

But that assumes everyone has the same pattern of using applications - a small number used all the time and then a whole load of others that they almost never use and that they are content to have buried in an incredibly long horizontally-scrolling, multi-screen list that includes uninstallers and help files and the like.

I knew someone would bring this up and honestly I have the same complaint.
MS didn't give users the ability to unpin all those unnecessary files from the App Screen. The best solution I have found so far is to right click them and then open the file location. From there you can manually delete the unnecessary files so they no longer show.

Personally I think the start menu style nested heirarchy works better if you use a large number of things about equally. The Win8 method is tablet and touch-focussed and is less good for the desktop, I don't see why some are so determined to try and deny that.

(Edit - I admit I also don't quite understand why I feel compelled to argue with the win8 defence team either. It just seems to me that they start with the conclusion - that you WILL like Win8 or you must be scared of change/unable to learn new things/working in the wrong way - and then try and justify it, and I don't understand why).

What works best for you is the point of any OS. Akugami is obviously using Win8. All I was trying to do was give him some helpful tips that might make it easier for him to use. If he does not know how to change file associations in Windows I will gladly help him change those so Win8 no longer opens the app version by default.
I also don't appreciate your jumping to the conclusion that I'm part of a "win8 defence team". I was trying to help a fellow member by giving advice that has worked for me. Hopefully he takes that advice and applies it to his PC in a way that works for him.

 

[Mem]

But that assumes everyone has the same pattern of using applications - a small number used all the time and then a whole load of others that they almost never use and that they are content to have buried in an incredibly long horizontally-scrolling, multi-screen list that includes uninstallers and help files and the like.

Personally I think the start menu style nested heirarchy works better if you use a large number of things about equally. The Win8 method is tablet and touch-focussed and is less good for the desktop, I don't see why some are so determined to try and deny that.

(Edit - I admit I also don't quite understand why I feel compelled to argue with the win8 defence team either. It just seems to me that they start with the conclusion - that you WILL like Win8 or you must be scared of change/unable to learn new things/working in the wrong way - and then try and justify it, and I don't understand why).

To be fair you can argue that both ways,personally I find using Win8 more or less same way as before,sure GUI is slightly different etc but to me its not hard or any hassle,I could argue same thing for all my different Linux and Windows builds,does that make me a Win8 fan because I can use it easily like any OS I've used in the last twenty five years,regardless Win9 will continue with what Microsoft think are improvements and change them accordingly again in Win10,11 etc...

I'll say it again no modern Windows is hard or non productive to use IMHO and that includes Win8.

As to arguments well I think it's really more to do with opinions,I for one don't care if members here like or dislike XP,Vista,Win7,Win8 or any OS you can name,but what I do find hard to swallow is when they say Win8 is hard to use,when I hear or read that I've to bang my head against a wall .

 

[Engineer]

Unification is not required for the desktop/notebook.

This...this.....this.

 

[pmv]

I knew someone would bring this up and honestly I have the same complaint.
MS didn't give users the ability to unpin all those unnecessary files from the App Screen. The best solution I have found so far is to right click them and then open the file location. From there you can manually delete the unnecessary files so they no longer show.


What works best for you is the point of any OS. Akugami is obviously using Win8. All I was trying to do was give him some helpful tips that might make it easier for him to use. If he does not know how to change file associations in Windows I will gladly help him change those so Win8 no longer opens the app version by default.
I also don't appreciate your jumping to the conclusion that I'm part of a "win8 defence team". I was trying to help a fellow member by giving advice that has worked for me. Hopefully he takes that advice and applies it to his PC in a way that works for him.

Fair enough, I apologise for that bit. I really can't figure out why I keep arguing about this anyway.

 

[nOOky]

So today, finally, I sat down with the missus and set up her Windows 8.1 personalizations.

I had Classic Shell installed, but we ended up uninstalling it so she could just switch between Metro and the desktop.

We set all the tile sizes, configured some apps, and put everything the way she liked it. I was surprised how much she likes it over Windows 7, she likes the app store, the games, and the live tiles.

I must admit, I like Windows 8.1, but I use Classic Shell also and just treat it like Windows 7.

I do think the GUI is kind of blocky, ugly, and not the most pleasing to the eye. I think just a few tweaks by Microsoft would make it so much better if they just realize the desktop version more than likely won't have a touch screen.

I dual boot 8.1 and 7 on the same PC, but honestly I haven't used 7 for months. I don't think Windows 8 is such a dud as most do, if you take the time to set it up just a bit. I know there are some annoying things that power users really hate, and I hate searching for everything, but it's not that bad.

Of course this is from a guy that liked Vista, and in fact the PC I'm typing this on has Vista Ultimate.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Also, refusing to adopt change is a sign you are getting old.

I can BS.

If my needs and wants don't warrant a change then how does that make me old? For instance, Office 2003 does everything I need and a hell of a lot I don't need, or want. I see no reason to change to Office 2010, 2012, or anything newer.

I could be half my age and draw the same conditions without your placard of being old.

 

[ultimatebob]

The only thing that annoyed me more than the Modern UI features in Windows 8 is that Microsoft tried to make it difficult ON PURPOSE to bring back the old Start menu if you still wanted it.

Microsoft usually gives the customer the ability to back out of a UI change if they don't like it (Hell, you can make Windows 7 look a lot like Windows 95 if you want), but they tried their hardest to cram their new touch screen tablet interface down everyone's throats.

Not surprisingly, the user community revolted and many either stuck with Windows 7 or added Start menu replacements to Windows 8. I hope that Microsoft's new CEO's has paid attention and shows some humility from the experience.

 

[Fallen Kell]

Sounds like they should just call it Windows 8.2 then.

They are renaming it Windows 9 because they know that Windows 8's name is already so badly ridiculed that the majority of the market will simply see the millions of posts on the internet of everyone complaining that it sucks. By changing a simple number they can essentially wipe the review slate clean and get a fresh start.

 

[Morbus]

Hopefully they do get a fresh start. I was excited for the NEW!™ operating system back when nobody knew anything about it. And then I saw what it was about and I wasn't excited anymore.

But I'm a sucker for new stuff, so I'm excited for Windows 9. Granted they probably won't be doing any of the stuff I really want (like bitrot-resistant file systems, or multi-desktop support, or a decent widget system, or a decent taskbar - and, of course, a decent start menu that doesn't fill my entire 24' screen), I'm still excited because it has every chance of being a fine operating system, better than Windows 7.

That is, IF they do go for a fresh start.

They don't even need that much to improve from Windows 8. Add a pretty UI, do away with ALL the metro crap if you're on a desktop (make it an option, I don't care), and fix all the little annoyances and inconsistencies that Metro introduced... That's all I'm asking.

 

[Morbus]

I can BS.

If my needs and wants don't warrant a change then how does that make me old? For instance, Office 2003 does everything I need and a hell of a lot I don't need, or want. I see no reason to change to Office 2010, 2012, or anything newer.

I could be half my age and draw the same conditions without your placard of being old.

Well, if you use MS Office you're a tool, for starters.

Well, just kidding , but really, tool.

LibreOffice that shit up dude.

 

[Puffnstuff]

The only thing that even has a chance with me is the return to hardware based audio which was retarded to mess with in the first place. Give me my classic windows interface and allow for customization so people who want to keep their new look can and folks like myself who want to keep the old can keep that too.