Windows 8. Do desktop users need it?

[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.

 

[thesilentman]

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.

Me, at first. Vista's interface I could handle, but 7's confused the heck outta me at first. Then I used it more and I can safely say that Vista is a gigantic steaming pile of shit. Oh and I've never felt Vista wrestle control. 7 sometimes, Vista never (discounting UAC here).

 

[SaetonChapelle]

I still have xp. T_T Gettg windows 7 for my brand new desktop coming in the mail but I'm behind on the times. Figures when I get my next desktop another windows gets released.

 

[Andrew_C]

I am no fan of Win8 and hate Metro as you might have gathered from my posts in this thread, but I would just like to point out that every version of Windows apart from Win2k and Win 7 has RUINED EVERYTHING. FOREVER!!!! before release, but somehow people have lived with it and even come to love some versions like XP, which was an utter disaster area until Service Pack 1 (never buy a Windows OS before SP1).

I can understand Microsoft's reasoning behind Metro and Windows 8, and it's relegation of the desktop user to a 2nd class citizen. Whether we like it or not, the desktop as we know it is going to go away eventually. Laptops will probably move into the desktop's niche and tablets occupy much of the present laptop niche. You can see it happening already. Laptops have already started outselling desktops.

 

[Dahaka27]

I am no fan of Win8 and hate Metro as you might have gathered from my posts in this thread, but I would just like to point out that every version of Windows apart from Win2k and Win 7 has RUINED EVERYTHING. FOREVER!!!! before release, but somehow people have lived with it and even come to love some versions like XP, which was an utter disaster area until Service Pack 1 (never buy a Windows OS before SP1).

I can understand Microsoft's reasoning behind Metro and Windows 8, and it's relegation of the desktop user to a 2nd class citizen. Whether we like it or not, the desktop as we know it is going to go away eventually. Laptops will probably move into the desktop's niche and tablets occupy much of the present laptop niche. You can see it happening already. Laptops have already started outselling desktops.

There will be always a market to have desktops in homes. With the new Ultrabooks and the new Macs soon to no longer support legacy video out that much longer, I am quite content to hook up my TV to my HDMI port on graphics card and get glorious true 1080p from my PC and not the upscaled crap that the 360 does and 720p that most of the PS3 games do.

 

[laggyteabag]

For a touch screen device, it would work well, however, for use with a normal PC, hell no!

I dont see there being many people adopting Win8 any time soon unless they reveal a Windows 7-like desktop view. Anyway, i wouldn't worry about it, 'cus most PC programmes run on older OS's anyway, so I don't see Win7 being dropped any time soon

 

[dfphetteplace]

I know that I will not be upgrading to 8. 7 works great for all of my games, and I see no reason to upgrade to it, at all. It really does not seem to offer anything unless you are using a tablet.

 

[Folji]

A lot of the technical aspects of Windows 8 are pretty admirable, but shoving a touch screen tablet interface on desktop users is like Microsoft coming to a conclusive agreement to blast their own feet off because it sounded like fun. For small netbook computers it might be a handy gimmick to play with (since your hands are moving pretty freely around while using the netbook and the size easily accommodates a tile-based interface), but for anyone with a desktop PC it lands you with an interface that's just gonna feel crowbareed in,'s gonna be right in your face thanks to the size of your screen and you're never going to use it like it should be used anyway because you have no reason whatsoever to reach out and place your hands all over it. The whole thing just smells of "touch interfaces are cool, let's make a desktop OS around it", without even mentioning that the Metro is designed as a closed system for which Microsoft gets to be the big bad gatekeeper. If it weren't for the fact that Windows 8 needs to be able to support existing PC software, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd just skipped the classic desktop part of the OS and made it nothing but Metro.

 

[TheKaduflyerSystem]

I'm still using Vista and intend to upgrade to win 7 early September-ish it took me far too long to become familiar with Win 7 on a friend's computer; and now I'm worried at the mere prospect of ANOTHER new windows; sometimes it seems 'almost' pointless to upgrade or even create a new OS; stupid throwaway society, shortening the lifespan of everything.

 

[Kakistos153]

Most people have computers. Most people are retarded. The natural (de)evolution is that populist OS developers will create shit for stupid people.