Windows 8. Do desktop users need it?

[Charli]

Nope, we dont. Do the same thing we did to Vista. Don't use it. Simples.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Sort answer, No.
Long answer, it's a reskin of win 7 for tablets and ARM architecture which frankly has nothing to do with desktop users.

Oh, good. I haven't heard much about Win 8 before this, and I was worried they'd made another Vista. I really like Windows 7, though, so if Windows 8 is "Moar Windows 7, but with Tablets" then that's cool.

I won't upgrade, but I won't avoid it either, if I happen to get a new computer where it comes pre-loaded. Not like I did with Vista. Ick.

 

[Hoplon]

Sort answer, No.
Long answer, it's a reskin of win 7 for tablets and ARM architecture which frankly has nothing to do with desktop users.

Oh, good. I haven't heard much about Win 8 before this, and I was worried they'd made another Vista. I really like Windows 7, though, so if Windows 8 is "Moar Windows 7, but with Tablets" then that's cool.

I won't upgrade, but I won't avoid it either, if I happen to get a new computer where it comes pre-loaded. Not like I did with Vista. Ick.

It's pretty much the way to go, it isn't an ME or vista, just that most of the new features won't really do that much for you.

 

[DeltaEdge]

After looking at some demos of metro, I don't think it's necessary for me, but I know that a large amount of people will buy it just because it is new, and also due to the ability to change to a windows 7/vista skin, that will probably help lure some people who are on the edge. It doesn't seem at all like a necessary upgrade though, and I love windows 7.

 

[Kakistos153]

Its going to be another vista - windows 7 thing.

They'll parade windows 8 around for a while, get feedback on it, and then come out with windows 9, which will be a scaled back consumer friendly version of their over controlling intolerable operating system that no one wants.

Then windows 9 will be AMAZING because it has gone through a massive prototype phase of ACTUALLY being on the market as a different product.

You cant get better market research than a full product release.

Especially when everyone with a brain will expect it to be pretty crap but know that something better and more in line with what they actually want from an operating system will be coming soon after and will be willing to buy it because they'll actually be excited about it.

As it stands there will be a LOT of people who wont switch over to windows 8 just because of attachment to their windows 7. windows 8 will loosen that grip somewhat and then by windows 9 the windows 7 users will be begging for something new that is also great. Which is exactly what Microsoft will provide.

Spending billions to carve a niche into a market, but making billions more in that niche.

 

[meshed]

Hiya guys, usually just stalk around but here goes,

I think people forget that if Microsoft just kept rolling out better and better iterations of windows XP/vista/7 ++ they would come irrelevant really REALLY quickly.

I for one will be looking forward to its launch, not necessarily because it will be better, but because it will be different. Personally really happy that they are moving in a coherent direction after years of stagnation. Regardless of whether you like that or not, you have to give them kudos for being so bold.

Personally I really like Metro. Its integration is kinds awkward but I think for the most part, it works. Its use is not very obvious at first, but when you think about it, it makes more sense than most people think.

I see it like a Social/Cloud Hub. It aggregates all your contacts, feeds, messages, images etc into one slick interface. And the live tiles give you a nice overview on whats going on at a glance. Great for stuff like keeping up on the news/email/ whatever. Suddenly I dont have to keep track of a million tabs. Yippe! And when youre done with it, hit the windows key and you can get back to work on your more practical desktop.

I guess what I'm saying is that they are obviously not selling the idea windows8 to any of us at the present. Theyre building and OS for the future, a time where you constantly have access to the cloud and you can get texts from people on your PC.

 

[rob_simple]

Am I the only person that thinks Windows 7 is awful? I was forced to take it with a new laptop just when I'd finally got used to wrestling with Vista and in 7 it feels like they've made even more of an effort to wrestle control out of my hands.

It feels like it was designed to be accessible for people who have no idea how to use a computer and an absolute nightmare for people who know not to open an e-mail attachment from the deposed prince of Nigeria.

 

[Rack]

Oh and if you're complaining about the lack of a start menu then why the hell are you using the start menu?

What?

The biggest complaint about 8 seems to be replacing the start menu with metro. But the start menu has been completely pointless for years now.

Says who, and why? I use it every time I want to do anything! All my most used tasks are on there, anything I need to search is there too. The only thing that has become dated about it is browsing the program folders in it. I only do that a fraction of what I use to in 95/98.

Win key plus typing the name of the program is much faster and easier, why fumble with all those clunky menus?

 

[Pinkamena]

I know I won't fucking switch to it!

 

[Signa]

Oh and if you're complaining about the lack of a start menu then why the hell are you using the start menu?

What?

The biggest complaint about 8 seems to be replacing the start menu with metro. But the start menu has been completely pointless for years now.

Says who, and why? I use it every time I want to do anything! All my most used tasks are on there, anything I need to search is there too. The only thing that has become dated about it is browsing the program folders in it. I only do that a fraction of what I use to in 95/98.

Win key plus typing the name of the program is much faster and easier, why fumble with all those clunky menus?

Just because you're happy doing that doesn't mean everyone else is comfortable with it. There's several different ways in accessing the Task Manager, yet I would never say "nix the Start Bar option" just because I'm used to hitting Ctrl+Shift+Esc with only two fingers.

 

[SpAc3man]

It's the overemphasis with icons that people are hating. Even so, why remove it completely? Why not leave an option? Why are we being forced to use Metro?

I wouldn't having it but if it meant removing the start button then I would rather do without.

Start Screen tiles are there to have your most used features right there in front of you along with live updates of information that is useful to the user. It is a combination of pinned taskbar items and the widgets that actually were useful like email and news feeds. A lot faster than having to dig through the Start Menu. Microsoft have no reason to keep the option of using a feature they have replaced for something that works better.

For times where you want something that isn't on your Start Screen you just start typing from the Start Screen to use the really good search functions or from anywhere in the system you can use winkey+Q to search apps, winkey+W for settings and winkey+F for files. Anyone who uses Win7 regularly should already be using the search box to quickly access things.
Have a rundown of how to use Win8 search

Spoiler

You could almost argue that the search screen is the real start menu replacement.

It's a vast improvement over the default layout, but it still wastes huge amounts of space. How do you do that, though? I used Win 8 (Release Preview) for several days before giving up in disgust and never managed to find how you customise the Metro screen.

Also, Live Tiles? Just another reimplementation of desktop widgets, which have been in Windows in various forms since XP (earlier if you include 3rd-party implementations).

EDIT: spelling, formatting

I figured it out very quickly but I suppose I will be kind enough to give a helpful link. [http://www.ampercent.com/organize-app-tiles-windows-8-metro-start-screen/10184/]

I would argue that the desktop always wasted large amounts of space while Metro is actually making use of it. Why have everything cramped on the taskbar or have all those messy desktop shortcuts? Widgets were always horribly messy and out of place. By integrating everything together it becomes a neater, less cluttered UI.

 

[mad825]

Start Screen tiles are there to have your most used features right there in front of you along with live updates of information that is useful to the user. It is a combination of pinned taskbar items and the widgets that actually were useful like email and news feeds. A lot faster than having to dig through the Start Menu.

thanks for explaining the features :/. I know.

Eh,"useful" is subjective. Again, this shows how this is really meant for the tablet/mobile design. Most users who use a tablet/mobile will be using it for those features alone only however people on a desktop will be relying on more complex features. identifying programs by name rather than icons does help to choose the correct application, the more icons there are the worse it is to quickly choose. They removed the "m" from WIMP.

The biggest problem for the Iphone GUI design is the Icon usage.

You don't really need to "dig through the Start Menu" for those features. Short-cuts have existed for that very reason. To reduce the amount of times you need to look.

Microsoft have no reason to keep the option of using a feature they have replaced for something that works better.

Now you're talking shit. The reason they gave us was because apparently not many people used it based on their "statistics". They never gave an accurate breakdown.

For times where you want something that isn't on your Start Screen you just start typing from the Start Screen to use the really good search functions or from anywhere in the system you can use winkey+Q to search apps, winkey+W for settings and winkey+F for files. Anyone who uses Win7 regularly should already be using the search box to quickly access things.
Have a rundown of how to use Win8 search
You could almost argue that the search screen is the real start menu replacement.

OH god, the Winkey is a cancer.

This is another problem, I either need to search which has been known to be slow and/or inaccurate or I need to look through every directory which will be in a mess. The start menu allows me to store all the .exe without having to clutter my desktop showing me all the relevant[footnote]this is a major problem, the search function is not accurate enough to identify possible programs the user might want but rather what's being searched. This may lead the user to search for X then looking for Y somewhere in it's directory path[/footnote] .exe for that program. Most software today have 2 or more .exe which have different functions, this is only going to get worse for gamers as due to some games having separate .exe for config, DX11/10/9 and 32/64-bit.

Nevertheless, Win8 doesn't score too well based on Quantitative and Qualitative measures of HCI

 

[Broady Brio]

I'm currently using Vista. Not by choice, mind you. I've fiddled a bit with my brother's laptop which has 7 on it. It's not that different from Vista. As for 8, which I didn't know existed until just now. Sounds unnecessary.

 

[Megacherv]

How the hell did I forget this?

BUILT-IN VIRUS AND MALWARE PROTECTION!!!

 

[extent]

The media along with microsoft tried to make out that 7 was so much better compared to vista. There are benefits of using 7 over vista, but there are also benefits of vista over 7-you only need to google to find out why for each case. The main reason as to why microsoft will be releasing a new version of windows on a more regular basis may be more obvious than you think=$$$$$$. Only the fanatics may bother purchasing. I have xp,vista and 7. I like vista the most as its closest to xp. After 7 being released a mere 2 years after vista, I wont be updating as much, unless there is a major change to features, and most of all, pricing. I have all the programs I need running on my machine now anyway, so it would be a pointless hassle to have to change operating system regularly. Most incompatibilities I used to encounter in the past came from gaming and little else.

 

[devotedsniper]

It's amazing the amount of people on the other thread who think Windows 8 is going to be the downfall of Windows and such (a lot of long live linux talk on there too). So far from the couple of times I've used it on my virtual machine (both dev preview and release) it's not a bad OS really, it ran fine even on just 2GB of my RAM.

If it's true what game developers are saying that it will kill their games, then Windows 8 is unsuitable for anyone who's not exclusively whoring with the usual AAA titles from EA.

I mean, I game, use word/excel and I surf the internet. If windows 8 takes most of those games away, I have a powerful incentive never to use that. I already disliked upgrading to Windows 7 because of the problems it gives with older games. The only thing that could keep me from sticking with older OS or switching to Linux would be support for one or two study-specific programs I sometimes need to use.

I see your point but from the brief experiences with the OS I haven't had a problem running anything such as Steam so all this Windows 8 is bad for gamers is blown way out of proportion. I'm not planning to upgrade if it's restrictive but from what I've seen it's Windows 7 with a new GUI so it's not going to be as bad as a lot of people are claiming. But then again there are some people who are still on xp that refuse to upgrade, even though 7 is a good OS (once you disable the annoying "Are you sure?" style messages) and it has good backwards compatibility (I've come across 1 program which wouldn't run, and even then there was a work a round).

 

[Dahaka27]

Wow I left this topic on the back burner thinking nobody would read it. Thanks for the great replies guys and gals.

Now I know I will be grabbing a OEM of 7 for my new rig when I get round to building it since I would imagine it will be cheaper when 8 comes out I guess.

Also on the topic of built in malware and virus protection, isnt that what microsoft security centre does? I don't really notice it since I use Avast, which takes care of my security needs.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

If Microsoft could refrain from forcing the soon-to-be officially renamed "Metro" tiled interface upon everybody, absolutely.

Under the hood, it's a streamlined, no-nonsense new iteration of Windows 7.

However, since "Metro" is shoved in your face at every boot and at every press of the Windows/Command-key, and the Start button and -menu are completely removed, making very basic tasks on a standard install a royal pain-in-the-brain kind of deal, as you have to point your mouse pointer at an empty space, where buttons will appear after a second or so, I think it's got to be killed, with napalm.

So far, I couldn't find anything that doesn't make sense, but the Metro bit alone makes this absolutely skippable for me, as the preview had me annoyed in no time, bored with it after two days or so, and vigilantly hacking away after a week. In a nutshell, it's worse than Ubuntu's HUD interface, in that it refuses to go away and stay away, even if you ask very politely. Also, while starting applications in full-screen makes perfect sense on touchyfeely tablets and other mobile devices, it sucks hairy donkey bottoms on a proper computer.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

The media along with microsoft tried to make out that 7 was so much better compared to vista. There are benefits of using 7 over vista, but there are also benefits of vista over 7-you only need to google to find out why for each case.

Ahem.

I do not intend to offend you or belittle your effort, but:

As an owner of many XP, Vista and 7 licenses, running them all alongside pre-Lion OSX and various incarnations of Linux, I have to tell you this:

Vista really is nothing more than a very, very raw beta of Windows 7. I think I installed the first Vista in 2008, and it remained to be an instant headache machine until I replaced it with the much more competent Windows 7. I really thought I had some dodgy hardware, broken RAM or the wrath of the universe somewhere in that box; it was really only Vista acting up. With all the time and attention it sucked out of us, we never got it to play along nicely with a variety of very, very basic things, wifi becoming an absolute nightmare. Vista was a very offensive joke, and it was on everyone who actually shelled out money for it. It's like paying money to get poop flung at you.

 

[thesilentman]

I will be getting a free copy through MSDNAA so I will be upgrading as soon as I get a good look at the stability of the final release. Metro is amazingly efficient when you actually stop whinging about it being different and learn how to use it properly. I don't use the start menu any more because I've actually figured out it's faster to use things pinned to the taskbar and the search functionality to get to anything that isn't on the taskbar. Start Screen is just an expansion of the best way to use modern Windows. Of course all the idiots who have been saying there is no reason to upgrade to 7 from XP are going to struggle to make the switch from a 11 year old OS (Seriously that's like still using Win3.1 two years after XP was released). All this crying over change reminds me of what happened when Microsoft introduced the Start Menu in Win95 to replace the Program Manager. I can only imagine it was the same with the change from a CLI to a GUI.

Have a look at this image. Obviously the top portion is what all the Metro haters think its going to be like. Bottom portion is what it is like when you actually use it properly. Everything organised into tidy, well spaced out, readable, custom groups.

Spoiler

Another thing to add is live tiles. Some tiles are able to give you information. You can see news updates, email notifications, RSS feeds, social media notifications, weather. Anything developers care to integrate into their app tiles. You could check everything you would normally check by looking at the one screen instead of having to open whatever apps you normally need. Even the login screen has notifications.

It all sounds great to me. Can't wait.

Okay, I'll admit that it does look nice for a tablet. And the notifications and such would add to the experience. Maybe I was overreacting...

OT- It's your choice. I've been stuck using Vista for gaming so I'll upgrade to either 7 or this with a Ubuntu dual boot. 7 gives Windows goodiness while 8 tries a different interface and sticks in "Just Trying" mode in my eyes.