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.
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.
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?"
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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'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.
[+] [-] Avalaxy|13 years ago|reply
- 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.
[+] [-] mbell|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] magoon|13 years ago|reply
Shift-click a pinned icon to start a new instance.
Use the Windows key on your keyboard. Start typing to find an app.
Press the Windows key again to toggle back to whatever was just open.
Winkey+F to find files instead of apps.
Winkey+D for desktop, always.
Winkey+L to login/lock screen, where you can shut down.
Get rid of the mandatory password/pin by not signing in to your Windows Live account. Better yet, never sign into it in the first place.
Don't use Metro IE, Mail or Messages if you want to use desktop apps for those. If you want to use mostly desktop, don't try to mix in Metro apps.
[+] [-] josephcooney|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DASD|13 years ago|reply
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?"
[+] [-] contextfree|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] memnips|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] pserwylo|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] makecheck|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Zak|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] andywhite37|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] CamperBob2|13 years ago|reply
My desktop PC is not a tablet.
[+] [-] mynameishere|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] hcarvalhoalves|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] wamatt|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tarrosion|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unconed|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] madoublet|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] magoon|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] CamperBob2|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] edandersen|13 years ago|reply
Probably one of the most glaring omissions.
[+] [-] smartician|13 years ago|reply
Windows 95: Bad.
Windows 98: Pretty good.
Windows ME: Awful.
Windows XP: Good.
Windows Vista: Errrrr. No.
Windows 7: Sweet!
Windows 8: ...
[+] [-] rogerbinns|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dag11|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DASD|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] contextfree|13 years ago|reply