[Jon L]

Well, I was willing to give Win 8 a shot, but I quickly decided it was not worth the frustration and the time to learn the darn thing.  It would be one thing if the various Win 8 changes actually helped me to do things I needed to do "better," but they were just different ways to do the same thing, not do it better.  Thank goodness for the Classic Shell and Skip Metro Suite, which are now on my Win 8 machine.  

 

[LizardKing1]

Quote:

That's exactly my point. The toxic notion of the unwillingness to change suprises me around here.

 
Well changing for the sake of changing isn't a good principle. I very much doubt all the compainting is all coming from people refusing to adapt. When I started using Windows 7 coming from XP I didn't immediately know how to use the new taskbar, with pinned programs and ribbon display. In a few minutes it felt very intuitive, and now I notice a big change when going back to my desktop computer with XP. So that was a good change, since it was more intuitive and alowed users to do the same thing more easily.
 
This is hardly the case with the Metro UI. It is a bit faster to navigate since I only put a couple of programs there, but it's not easier. The whole idea of having the desktop be an app feels weird, and using certain programs in Metro and others in desktop generates a lot of confusion, as it's obvious that having everything centered around the desktop is more organized. Unlike the the change to 7's taskbar, I have adapted out of need and not because it's better or easier. I feel like it was an unneeded change. At the very least there should be an option to get the old start menu back.

 

[Tangster]

Quote:

 
Well changing for the sake of changing isn't a good principle. I very much doubt all the compainting is all coming from people refusing to adapt. When I started using Windows 7 coming from XP I didn't immediately know how to use the new taskbar, with pinned programs and ribbon display. In a few minutes it felt very intuitive, and now I notice a big change when going back to my desktop computer with XP. So that was a good change, since it was more intuitive and alowed users to do the same thing more easily.
 
This is hardly the case with the Metro UI. It is a bit faster to navigate since I only put a couple of programs there, but it's not easier. The whole idea of having the desktop be an app feels weird, and using certain programs in Metro and others in desktop generates a lot of confusion, as it's obvious that having everything centered around the desktop is more organized. Unlike the the change to 7's taskbar, I have adapted out of need and not because it's better or easier. I feel like it was an unneeded change. At the very least there should be an option to get the old start menu back.

I tend to agree with this. Windows 8 has a great deal of useful and very nice new features(ribbon bar, storage space, etc) but the metro start menu is rather messy feels a bit shoehorned it.

 

[proton007]

Change for the sake of change doesn't necessarily have to be accepted. If something takes more clicks to be done, or needs more mouse travel than before (read: all over the screen) its not a good design. 
And add to the fact that the same need not apply for touch screens. Combine the two and you have a confusing UI.
 
This is why a lot of command line apps are easier and consistent, they can get the work done faster with lesser input. And its the same reason why editors like Vim and Emacs are so popular (read : you don't even need a mouse) even after the boom of IDEs.

 

[Yeti tunes]

Quote:

Change for the sake of change doesn't necessarily have to be accepted. If something takes more clicks to be done, or needs more mouse travel than before (read: all over the screen) its not a good design. 
And add to the fact that the same need not apply for touch screens. Combine the two and you have a confusing UI.
 
This is why a lot of command line apps are easier and consistent, they can get the work done faster with lesser input. And its the same reason why editors like Vim and Emacs are so popular (read : you don't even need a mouse) even after the boom of IDEs.

Understood, but vim/nano/vi whatever =/= DOS. Additionally I would argue that the instances are few where it requires more clicks to complete a task. Launching a program for me is (and has been since Vista) Win key > type beginning of program name > enter. Just because the start menu is made of squares instead of text doesn't make it clumsy it makes it different.
 
I agree different does not mean better. For some reason there is still a bit of convolusion about which programs are metro and which programs are regular desktop programs which I will grant is poor conveyance.
 
Finally, command line apps are easier if you've been using them for 10 years. You know why? They haven't changed. Of course in their defense they haven't needed to but this is why everything "feels easy" from cli, because you've done it for so long. Give someone who is unfamiliar with cli input and they'll be scratching their head just like the early adopters of Windows 8 are.

 

[proton007]

Quote:

 
Finally, command line apps are easier if you've been using them for 10 years. You know why? They haven't changed. Of course in their defense they haven't needed to but this is why everything "feels easy" from cli, because you've done it for so long. Give someone who is unfamiliar with cli input and they'll be scratching their head just like the early adopters of Windows 8 are.

 
I'll concede the fact that there's some amount of experience, but the factor that also aids in this learning is the consistency. 99% of command line apps follow the Program Name, Option(s), Argument(s) style. You learn it in one app, it'll work in others, and just refer to the man page to see the options/arguments. Its also simple because there's probably no better way to do things in CLI. Vim and Emacs are similar in the respect that everything is either a Ctrl or Meta key combination, followed by an argument.
 
In GUI things are not as simple, hence the need for tight guidelines as to what elements should be placed where, and what should be the general workflow for each app have to be defined clearly. Here's what I think about the MS approach to UI with its newer offerings. At a glance it is pretty mixed up:
-- A phone UI (Phone 8) that works on phones, but won't run Windows apps, only mobile apps ( MS Office included)
-- A lesser Windows (RT) that mixes the phone UI with traditional desktop, runs on tablets, but won't run any Windows apps either (only MS Office, desktop version). Maybe some phone apps will work in Metro mode, the rest maybe in desktop mode.
-- A full featured Windows (Pro), still mixing the phone UI with traditional desktop, and runs Windows apps as well as mobile apps.
 
It may be an ambitious goal set by MS, but not very practical IMO, and it demonstrates a clear lack of vision, and a lack of confidence in their offering maybe due to commercial pressure or otherwise (Put in as many things as possible, create a different version for every user segment out there). Its hard to grasp, even for the technically inclined.
 
A particularly good example IMO, of a phone and desktop OS that is very cross compliant is the Ubuntu Mobile OS, recently announced. Although the phone and desktop versions look different, the UI elements are similar in the respect that the phone UI follows the Unity interface in terms of overall feel, and the apps that can work on desktop will work on the phone as well, and vice versa. Of course the mobile apps would be simpler, but it removes developer headache to learn new programming toolkits.
I'm not a big fan of Unity, but when I looked at the phone UI, I could get an idea of how the two fit in Canonical's design approach.
Google is trying to do it with their Chrome OS that follows the Chrome browser. However, the Android UI is totally detached (Speaking as an Android user).
MS seems to have gone the other way round. Design the phone first, then push it on to desktop.
 
I'm not biased against Windows or MS. I'm a Windows 7 user, and was one of the early adopters to jump on it from XP/Vista. I like it because it improved on the workflow, made things easier.
Ironically, Win 8 may work for new users, but I just don't get it as an existing user. Maybe its just an experiment, as every alternate MS OS is.
Alternatively, its also possible we're already past the peak of the computing revolution, so there's not much headroom for improvement.

 

[Yeti tunes]

Quote:

In GUI things are not as simple, hence the need for tight guidelines as to what elements should be placed where, and what should be the general workflow for each app have to be defined clearly. Here's what I think about the MS approach to UI with its newer offerings. At a glance it is pretty mixed up:
-- A phone UI (Phone 8) that works on phones, but won't run Windows apps, only mobile apps ( MS Office included)
-- A lesser Windows (RT) that mixes the phone UI with traditional desktop, runs on tablets, but won't run any Windows apps either (only MS Office, desktop version). Maybe some phone apps will work in Metro mode, the rest maybe in desktop mode.
-- A full featured Windows (Pro), still mixing the phone UI with traditional desktop, and runs Windows apps as well as mobile apps.

I'm confused about how this is different from any other MS OS release in the recent past. Different product suites offer different features - plain and simple. Heck, Windows 7 had Starter, Home Basic, Home Premium, Pro, Enterprise and Ultimate. There's also Vista upgrade options, not to mention you could buy these in combination w/ family packs or volume licencing ala mix n match. If you can remember what all the differences are then kudos to you but I certainly can't.
 
Different users require different feature sets. Before anyone forks over >$100 for a product, I would hope that a bit of research is done first - such as we all do here with headphones. Buy whatever version suites your needs.
 
I really feel like MS made an effort to make it less confusing in Windows 8. There's Basic, Pro, Enterprise. That's it. Not sure how that's more confusing.
 
Edit: I'm gonna go ahead and lay this to rest now. I was simply pointing out the hilarious over-exaggeration on the part of the youtube commentator.

 

[proton007]

Quote:

I'm confused about how this is different from any other MS OS release in the recent past. Different product suites offer different features - plain and simple. Heck, Windows 7 had Starter, Home Basic, Home Premium, Pro, Enterprise and Ultimate. There's also Vista upgrade options, not to mention you could buy these in combination w/ family packs or volume licencing ala mix n match. If you can remember what all the differences are then kudos to you but I certainly can't.

 
Its not a good model either, however you can run the same apps on all of them. The differences are on the OS features side (Windows Media Centre, File Encryption, XP mode etc), but they all have the same architecture.
Still, I didn't even say anything about their Pro/Enterprise etc. I talked about Phone, RT and Pro versions which are architecturally different and have disjointed UIs. Its even more confusing to users. The RT version looks the same as Pro, and both look like Win Phone, but RT won't run the same apps as Pro and the Phone obviously runs phone apps?

 

[proton007]

Quote:

Edit: I'm gonna go ahead and lay this to rest now. I was simply pointing out the hilarious over-exaggeration on the part of the youtube commentator.

 
I agree, its over emotional, but it does make some valid points.

 

[Roller]

The bottomline of Windows 8 is crystal clear, there is a new UI forced onto users by default along with some features removed since Windows 7. However, restoring all removed features is easily done without adding any sort of overhead to Windows 8. More importantly (the true gem about Windows 8) is the fact that the under the hood improvements are significant, such as faster I/O operations, lower system resource usage, improved USB DAC compatibility and better video subsystem handling.
 
Yes, there will always be people unwilling to change, others always wanting to hop on the latest bandwagon, but what should be taken from the above is that if users want an updated Windows 7 with a smaller footprint and improved performance across the board, Windows 8 is unquestionably the OS to get. People just need to keep in mind that by default the UX is quite a bit different and if Windows 7's UX is desired, some setting up needs to be done prior to start using Windows 8.

 

[billybob_jcv]

I know this thread seems to be primarily about Win8 on the desktop - but I just got an HTC 8X phone and this is my first experience with Win 8. I'm coming from an Android phone (Samsung) and my first few hours with the 8X was a struggle! Everything just seemed so incredibly weird. It took me about 20 minutes to figure out how to change the ring tone. HOWEVER, I must say that right now I'm starting to like it. I have rearranged the home tiles to my liking and I have figured out the basics of phone, email, browser and loaded a few basic games (nothing fancy - just some gem matchers, card games, breakout, etc). The HTC 8X form factor is brilliant - the screen is beautiful and it's nice and thin. The touch screen is FAR better than the Samsung for both swiping and typing. The free games I have loaded all work very nicely - much better than some of the buggy garbage I had on the Android. The battery life also seems much better than the Samsug - it was a HOG.

So - I don't know about the desktop or the tablet, but so far I am pleasantly surprised by the Win 8 phone.

 

[MoonUnit]

I was wondering if someone could help me with a Windows 8 installation issue. In January I used Microsoft's "upgrade assistant" to buy and pay for a Windows 8 Pro upgrade from my work computer. When I tried to actually download it through the upgrade assistant, I got an "Undefined error" error message. At the time, I thought this was caused by the firewall at work interfering with the download. I brought the laptop home last week and tried to download again using the upgrade assistant, but I actually still get this error message.
 
So I'm sort of stuck. I paid for Windows 8 and have a product key I paid for, but can't download it. There is no e-mail address or phone number to contact on the receipt that I printed out from the upgrade assistant, and no contact information in the upgrade assistant either.
 
Is there any special way of invoking the upgrade assistant to download in a different way that might not trigger the error? Anyone have any other suggestions?

 

[jtaylor991]

Quote:

I was wondering if someone could help me with a Windows 8 installation issue. In January I used Microsoft's "upgrade assistant" to buy and pay for a Windows 8 Pro upgrade from my work computer. When I tried to actually download it through the upgrade assistant, I got an "Undefined error" error message. At the time, I thought this was caused by the firewall at work interfering with the download. I brought the laptop home last week and tried to download again using the upgrade assistant, but I actually still get this error message.
 
So I'm sort of stuck. I paid for Windows 8 and have a product key I paid for, but can't download it. There is no e-mail address or phone number to contact on the receipt that I printed out from the upgrade assistant, and no contact information in the upgrade assistant either.
 
Is there any special way of invoking the upgrade assistant to download in a different way that might not trigger the error? Anyone have any other suggestions?

Just find a phone number for Microsoft somewhere on the internet. Alternatively, you could pirate the software and legitimately activate it with your key That's where the money is, so it's still a legitimate copy, unless it's cracked and has a bunch of bugs, but that's not necessary since you have an activation key. For me, the latter would be less troublesome but do whatever you want to; it seems like the former might work better (since like I said pirated copies might have some mods or something and have bugs as a result).

 

[sari0n]

I've had the same issue that you have.  The way that most people do it is running the upgrade assistant again, which part way through will give you the option to download an iso/create a usb thumbdrive to install Windows 8 off of.  You can enter the same serial number that you received even if it's been activated already to progress through the upgrade assistant.  Otherwise, a google search for Windows 8 iso or usb installation should turn up some files.
 
As for the OS itself, I guess I'm a fairly techy person and still young so it's easy for me to adapt to changes.  I've used Windows 8 since the beta, and am currently running it on my desktop with 3 monitors, a laptop, and also a tablet (x86 architecture, not arm).  I personally like the changes and after the first week have yet to find a situation where I would prefer 7 over 8, from workstation all the way to ultra portable.  I don't like the metro though, although I've had no issues avoiding it and running everything on the classic desktop.

 

[billybob_jcv]

Windows 8 is a disaster for corporate IT. Good grief, just switching from Office 2003 to 2007/2010 almost sent our users into apoplexy. Removing the desktop will send them into catatonia. I've got users that can't handle it if I change the name of folder on a network share drive or the name of the network printer. I am furious at Microsoft for doing this to the IT industry. They gave us NO transition path to allow us to deploy new Win 8 workstations without Metro. They don't seem to care that corporate IT still needs to install and maintain crappy old applications like Oracle eBusiness Suite (Java based and no significant upgrades in 3+ years), client-server based apps that are one step-up from green screens, and custom apps built 8 years ago using Java or Visual C++. IT budgets are tighter than ever and we have ZERO resources to keep up with the feature wars between Microsoft, Google, Oracle, Salesforce.com, SAP, Citrix, vmWare, and every 2nd & 3rd tier SW vendor - it is simply insane.