Windows 8 Consumer Preview Feedback Thread

[Dominato3r]

I haven't used it, but many people are saying it's like Windows 95. DOS was there and you could use it but people could see that it was fading, and obviously, it did. I imagine the desktop to be a similar case.

 

[BD2003]

Even if we accept that some revision of metro is the future...is this really the best way to make that transition? Wouldn't it be a better idea to marginalize the experimental work in progress until its adequate to be a replacement?

 

[wiin]

Because apple basically subsidizes the cost of OS upgrades, since theyre also a hardware manufacturer. It remains to be seen how much mountain lion costs, now that they're apparently moving to a yearly cycle. $30 a year basically puts them in range of the $99ish MS charges for an upgrade every 3 years....with the huge cavaet that the single $30 fee is good for every Mac you own, but MS wants you to buy a separate license per machine.[/QU


Apple allows u to install their OS with one license in many machines? whoaaaaaaa. that is cool. where can I get it and what is the maximum number of machnes i can install it on?? Oh, by the way,I just updated my Win7 machine for free.

 

[symthomas]

I leaped from XP to the Win 8 CP about 1 week ago. So far its been terrific. I did install Star8 just to retain some of the desktop features I am familiar with. Right now I just keep Explorer, IE, and the control panel on the taskbar. Having all my programs pinned on the metroui is turning out to be far superior to the program menu from both an ease and aesthetic point of view. I have only had one hugely NEGATIVE experience but I will comment on my favorite things so far:
1) Weather, Map, and gadget apps are GREAT
2) Drive and folder management tools appear to be much more thorough than in XP
3) Windows Defender seems to be a solid anti-virus program
4) IE 10 is really fast
5) All my hardware and software was compatible

The BIG problem I had was when I tried to install Symantec Endpoint Protection. It crashed my system and I could not get it to reboot. After about 5 tries, Win8 message appeared noting the error. It allowed me to restore to a previous point, but I had to reinstall a lot of my software again. Anyway, glad I didn't have to reload XP then 8 again.
All in all, its a vast and welcome change to XP, perhaps not 7. If you have anything less than 7 I would HIGHLY recommend the CP.

Hello,

Windows 8 is not yet officially supported on SEP 12.1, or SEP 11.
See - About Windows 8 and Symantec Endpoint Protection 12.1

http://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=TECH174348

 

[nitromullet]

This guy does some pretty good tweaks to the Start screen that some of you might be interested in:

http://www.zdnet.com/photos/the-met...review/6350390?tag=photo-frame;get-photo-roto

It seems like quite a bit of effort, but I like the fact that he just tweaks Metro and doesn't install any third party apps.

 

[Pia]

Even if we accept that some revision of metro is the future...is this really the best way to make that transition? Wouldn't it be a better idea to marginalize the experimental work in progress until its adequate to be a replacement?

Since you don't have to touch Metro apps in Win8, I'm not sure what you would consider to be sufficiently marginalized. Should Microsoft be actively hiding Metro from people who want to use it?

 

[Pia]

This guy does some pretty good tweaks to the Start screen that some of you might be interested in:

http://www.zdnet.com/photos/the-met...review/6350390?tag=photo-frame;get-photo-roto

It seems like quite a bit of effort, but I like the fact that he just tweaks Metro and doesn't install any third party apps.

More like ten minutes of effort, which is a stark contrast to the hours I have spent testing and tweaking third party launchers and scripts so I wouldn't have to deal with the Win7 Start menu and its fellow abominations. The only novel tweak there (and quite nice I think) is matching the desktop background. Everything the dude customizes in the Start screen itself is just using the screen how Microsoft designed it to be used - pinning the stuff you need to be immediately available, and discarding the tiles you don't want.

Apropos, I expect I'll be installing many Metro apps just for their status and notification tiles. In fact, maybe there will even be stand-alone tile apps without an attached main UI.

 

[BD2003]

Since you don't have to touch Metro apps in Win8, I'm not sure what you would consider to be sufficiently marginalized. Should Microsoft be actively hiding Metro from people who want to use it?

It would be sufficiently marginalized if:

1. Equal development resources were spent improving the desktop side, which clearly isn't the case.
2. The desktop had an app store of it's own, which I consider basic functionality in 2012.
3. More than anything else - using it as the start screen/program launcher was an option, not a requirement. If it is good enough, people will choose to use it on its own merits. Right now you have to go out of your way NOT to use metro.

 

[Pia]

It would be sufficiently marginalized if:

1. Equal development resources were spent improving the desktop side, which clearly isn't the case.

They should obviously be doing polish and improvements to the classic desktop when the cost to benefit ratio is good enough, but long as they consider Metro apps and task switching to be the future, spending equal development resources on classic desktop is just illogical.

2. The desktop had an app store of it's own, which I consider basic functionality in 2012.

I agree it seems weird they didn't put up a desktop store.

3. More than anything else - using it as the start screen/program launcher was an option, not a requirement. If it is good enough, people will choose to use it on its own merits. Right now you have to go out of your way NOT to use metro.

The average idiot does not voluntarily touch stuff that is significantly different from what they already know, so there is no way for the new UI to sell itself to those people on merit; they have to be dropped in it.

 

[Linflas]

I haven't used it, but many people are saying it's like Windows 95. DOS was there and you could use it but people could see that it was fading, and obviously, it did. I imagine the desktop to be a similar case.

Sorry but that is not really a valid comparison IMHO. Adding the GUI on top of DOS provided immediate and obvious benefits to make PC's more accessible to a wider range of people. Exactly how does removing what people have come to expect are essential parts of the GUI like the desktop, menu of applications, and a button to get to them providing a similar benefit in Windows 8?

 

[BD2003]

They should obviously be doing polish and improvements to the classic desktop when the cost to benefit ratio is good enough, but long as they consider Metro apps and task switching to be the future, spending equal development resources on classic desktop is just illogical.
I agree it seems weird they didn't put up a desktop store.
The average idiot does not voluntarily touch stuff that is significantly different from what they already know, so there is no way for the new UI to sell itself to those people on merit; they have to be dropped in it.

See, I just don't buy that. Otherwise we'd still be using DOS on desktops, and people would have rejected iOS outright. We'd also still be riding horses and sending paper letters. If something is good, people will line up behind it without being forced.

Being different/newer and being better are two *entirely* separate things. People will go out of their way to adapt to something better, in time. People will outright reject something that's just different, and forcing people to change before they willingly choose to will just alienate them.

 

[cboath]

The point of an 'app store', in general, is to give the OS maker a final say-so on whether an app is OK for use and to get a piece of the action on the sale. Most likely more on the acceptable for use on the platform than money, but it's still there. There are free apps, but they still get money via the advertising in them.

If you want to make an App for the iphone or win8, you've gotta get Apple's or MS's approval that it'll run and is acceptable to whatever restrictions they have. Adding an 'app store' to the desktop for normal programs would require a large in the way programs are approved and sold and I don't see those program makers buying into it. They don't have to get any approval as things stand now unless they want the 'Runs on WinX' sticker on the box.

Apple can do this because any software for a mac has to be signed off by them in the first place. Changing their developer agreements to require you to list them on their desktop app store isn't a big deal. It'd be a whole new deal on the PC side of things in windows. Also, don't forget, that the app store didn't land on the mac until Ios 3 or 4, not version 1. I'd look for a desktop app store to be in the next version, not this one.

 

[BD2003]

The point of an 'app store', in general, is to give the OS maker a final say-so on whether an app is OK for use and to get a piece of the action on the sale. Most likely more on the acceptable for use on the platform than money, but it's still there. There are free apps, but they still get money via the advertising in them.

To a consumer, the point of an app store is an easy way to find, pay for and update applications. It's about a billion times more convenient than retail stores, digging through download sites, developer sites and having each app deal with its own updates. I can download and install an application with one click on an app store, but I have to jump through a million hoops and sign up for accounts, manage license etc etc the old way.

If you want to make an App for the iphone or win8, you've gotta get Apple's or MS's approval that it'll run and is acceptable to whatever restrictions they have. Adding an 'app store' to the desktop for normal programs would require a large in the way programs are approved and sold and I don't see those program makers buying into it. They don't have to get any approval as things stand now unless they want the 'Runs on WinX' sticker on the box.

I've basically stopped buying Mac apps that aren't in the app store. It's too much of a PITA. If developers don't want to adapt to what's convenient for consumers, then they lose out.

Apple can do this because any software for a mac has to be signed off by them in the first place. Changing their developer agreements to require you to list them on their desktop app store isn't a big deal. It'd be a whole new deal on the PC side of things in windows. Also, don't forget, that the app store didn't land on the mac until Ios 3 or 4, not version 1. I'd look for a desktop app store to be in the next version, not this one.

So 8 iterations isn't enough for them to figure this out? They need 9? This should have been standard practice since broadband was widely available back with win XP - and they actually did try with "windows marketplace" - it was just a total failure because it was garbage. If they're not doing it in 8, they clearly have no intention to.

 

[FM2n]

So 8 iterations isn't enough for them to figure this out? They need 9? This should have been standard practice since broadband was widely available back with win XP - and they actually did try with "windows marketplace" - it was just a total failure because it was garbage. If they're not doing it in 8, they clearly have no intention to.

That's not a fair assessment. I would consider this their first iteration, because they never intended for their OS to bridge over to tablets.

 

[BD2003]

That's not a fair assessment. I would consider this their first iteration, because they never intended for their OS to bridge over to tablets.

Huh? This is absolutely not their first iteration of a desktop OS, tablet OS or an app store.

And if they never intended their OS to bridge over to tablets, how did it happen? Did the tablet stuff in XP, vista and 7 just exist in my dreams? Did someone sneak in at night and code metro while everyone else was sleeping?

Or do you mean that they were so comfortable in their monopoly that they fell asleep at the wheel instead of actually making something good, and thats supposed to be some sort of excuse?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Why would it be a bad idea for metro app tiles to be pinned to the desktop like gadgets? We have the screen real estate on a desktop monitor, plus the apps are running in the background in Metro anyway to keep the tile updated.

 

[Dominato3r]

Sorry but that is not really a valid comparison IMHO. Adding the GUI on top of DOS provided immediate and obvious benefits to make PC's more accessible to a wider range of people. Exactly how does removing what people have come to expect are essential parts of the GUI like the desktop, menu of applications, and a button to get to them providing a similar benefit in Windows 8?

It's called evolution, aesthetically people have their differences. Some people think the start screen is a terrible thing, others think it's great. But the functionality in the new start screen is a lot better than the current Windows 7 search.

People only have to train themselves to either move to their mouse to the bottom right, as they have been doing for ages, or hit the windows key on the keyboard. After 5 minutes of use it becomes normal.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

How exactly is the Metro search better than the Win7 Start menu search? Why is having to search for something a few mouse clicks would get you to previously a UI improvement?

 

[Dominato3r]

In metro you don't actually have to click anything, you can just start typing. The search allows you to look through specific settings, applications etc. It even allows to you search the internet directly (IIRC this is possible in Win7 as well through some deeper settings but it isn't default).

Click opening is still there, if that's your thing.

 

[WelshBloke]

Gah! too much stuff runs full screen! Ive got a couple of large monitors so I can have a bunch of open usable windows, if windows is going to force a bunch of stuff to full screen thats going to be annoying.

Also win8 wont recognise any of my hotswap HDDs when I plug them in.

Edit.----------------------

In metro you don't actually have to click anything, you can just start typing...

How is that different to winkey and typing in win7?

 

[M0RPH]

In metro you don't actually have to click anything, you can just start typing. The search allows you to look through specific settings, applications etc. It even allows to you search the internet directly (IIRC this is possible in Win7 as well through some deeper settings but it isn't default).

Click opening is still there, if that's your thing.

I've never typed to find programs. Never saw the point of that, with a mouse-driven UI and all my programs in the start menu list, just a couple clicks away. Telling people that they should type or learn keyboard shortcuts doesn't seem like good UI evolution to me.

 

[M0RPH]

I have a question for you guys. With the Metro IE, how would you open two web pages and view them both 50/50 in split screen? That's something I commonly do, but it doesn't seem possible... just their predefined 80/20 split (or whatever it is).

 

[Pia]

I've never typed to find programs. Never saw the point of that, with a mouse-driven UI and all my programs in the start menu list, just a couple clicks away. Telling people that they should type or learn keyboard shortcuts doesn't seem like good UI evolution to me.

The point is that typing is faster. Anyway, no one has said you "should" type or learn keyboard shortcuts. The new screen is also faster because it fits so much more clickable stuff that most of the time two clicks will be enough instead of the old tiny, silly menu's couple clicks.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The point is that typing is faster.

It's not faster when you're leaning back in your chair with just your right hand at the control. I know that's one specific scenario, but it's the position I'm usually in at the PC. I'm comfortable because of an accommodating UI.

 

[cboath]

Huh? This is absolutely not their first iteration of a desktop OS, tablet OS or an app store.

And if they never intended their OS to bridge over to tablets, how did it happen? Did the tablet stuff in XP, vista and 7 just exist in my dreams? Did someone sneak in at night and code metro while everyone else was sleeping?

Or do you mean that they were so comfortable in their monopoly that they fell asleep at the wheel instead of actually making something good, and thats supposed to be some sort of excuse?

So it's unacceptable that Microsoft hasn't done it by Windows 8, but it's OK that apple didn't do it until OSX - i.e. 10?

Some may see it as convenient, but not everyone. Again, it's done for control and money. Convenience to any user is just a extra bonus for them. You do realize Apple has used this to keep people from writing things they don't want them too, right? Your browser can use flash? Banned. You want access to the music files? Banned. Doesn't meet the moral level? Banned. Furthermore, they locked everyone else OUT. You get it from the app store or you don't get it - unless you're capable of jailbreaking. That's very problematic.

Now, if you want an app store that's simply a clearing house, fine. No moral checks, no policy checks, no agendas, and simply code validation and distribution that'd be fine. But it shouldn't be app store or nothing.

Apple, or more accurately, Steve Jobs had a personal issue with adobe, so he banned flash. Microsoft could use their app store to ban stuff too. Only problem is all the US and EU and who knows who else would yank them into court ASAP and they'd be hit with mega fines. But, as long as it's Apple banning things - it's OK, right?