Coming Soon: Windows 9 currently codenamed "Threshold" Public Preview

[ninjacore]

What's so terrible about a "start screen" as opposed to a "start menu"?

 

[firesoul453]

What's so terrible about a "start screen" as opposed to a "start menu"?

Its better in about 0 ways and covers up what your doing which is annoying. Its much harder to minimize games since it only wants to open the start screen, why not have both options, etc..

ALso windows 8 really annoys me, those dialogs that open on the side close if you go to do anything! Oh I need to set up VPN, copies password, has to start all over....


Edit: 100th post woo!

 

[ninjacore]

Edit: 100th post woo!

Its better in about 0 ways

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...ows_7_vs_81_performance_review/1#.U_uR0PldW4I

and covers up what your doing which is annoying. Its much harder to minimize games since it only wants to open the start screen, why not have both options, etc..

ALso windows 8 really annoys me, those dialogs that open on the side close if you go to do anything! Oh I need to set up VPN, copies password, has to start all over....

Alt-tab never opens the start screen for me in games?

I have no idea what you're talking about with the dialog [bubbles?]. I don't think I've had a W8 "popup" interrupt anything I've ever done.

 

[Janus67]

I think he means the charms

 

[ninjacore]

Gotcha. I vaguely remember the charms bar "undesiredly" coming up the first few times I moused-over a notification icon, but only in the first week or so that I used the OS. If you keep your mouse at the bottom of the screen, though, in-line with the notification icons you're going for, it isn't an issue (just like with dual monitor setups, with the primary screen on the right, you have to drag along the bottom of the right screen to click the start button to keep the cursor from going over to the left monitor).

I honestly think most people who dislike W8 so much, probably didn't use it longer than a week. Once you get used to the start screen vs. start menu, there are very few differences.

 

[doublejack]

Wait so do you think every program out there should have to create its own windows library from scratch to display any information??

My objections are not to classic shell's use of the windows graphics API, but rather that it modifies some very basic features of windows - notably Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer.

What's so terrible about a "start screen" as opposed to a "start menu"?

It is way less efficient. That is the bottom line for me when it comes to an OS and the GUI. How many clicks does it take to accomplish something? When Microsoft implemented the start screen, they took a major step backwards. You don't put a phone / tablet optimized gui on a full-on computer and expect it to be efficient. A mouse and keyboard offer much more control than simple hand gestures.

 

[ninjacore]

It is way less efficient. That is the bottom line for me when it comes to an OS and the GUI. How many clicks does it take to accomplish something? When Microsoft implemented the start screen, they took a major step backwards. You don't put a phone / tablet optimized gui on a full-on computer and expect it to be efficient. A mouse and keyboard offer much more control than simple hand gestures.

How is it less effecient? It takes the exact number of clicks and works almost identically. The only change they made was to make it compatible with touch-enabled devices, not specific to them.

 

[doublejack]

How is it less effecient? It takes the exact number of clicks and works almost identically. The only change they made was to make it compatible with touch-enabled devices, not specific to them.

It's optimized for small screen, touch devices. That was Microsoft's primary decision when it came to the design of Windows 8/8.1. From hidden menus, to how things scale on a high resolution screen, ALL of the little details are designed to make the GUI work well on a phone or tablet, but act as a hindrance when you have a mouse and keyboard at your disposal.

And you are not correct that it's the same number of clicks. Read this - http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/windows-8-enterprise-rtm-review.html

It is one example. Running Windows Update in Windows 8 takes an additional click (and even more jumping through circles the first time) to run versus running it in Windows 7.

I work on servers all day, every day. I can tell you for a fact that Windows Server 2012 / 2012 R2 (server versions of Windows 8/8.1) are less efficient than prior versions. It takes me more clicks to log out when I'm done, more clicks to start applications, etc. If Windows 8/8.1 were measured by the user interface alone, they are a clear step BACKWARDS. Not like going back to the days of DOS... that would be an exaggeration. But it begs the question, why did they go backwards at all??? Just so MS could force one UI down everyone's throat for phone/tablet/pc? That's some really poor logic.

 

[Automata]

If you are seriously rating the operating system by the number of clicks it takes you to do updates or log out, I'm not really sure how to respond to that. Updates in 7 and 8 take zero clicks to get to if you have it set to automatic.

I used the Windows 7 beta and bought it the day it came out. Shortly after 8 was released, I tried it out and liked it. I run it on my desktop and laptop now with no problem. I'd venture to guess that you aren't running 4x 2650x1440 monitors, which works fine on 8, by the way.

A lot of little features were added to 8 that made going back to 7 annoying.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

It's optimized for small screen, touch devices. That was Microsoft's primary decision when it came to the design of Windows 8/8.1. From hidden menus, to how things scale on a high resolution screen, ALL of the little details are designed to make the GUI work well on a phone or tablet, but act as a hindrance when you have a mouse and keyboard at your disposal.

And you are not correct that it's the same number of clicks. Read this - http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/windows-8-enterprise-rtm-review.html

It is one example. Running Windows Update in Windows 8 takes an additional click (and even more jumping through circles the first time) to run versus running it in Windows 7.

I work on servers all day, every day. I can tell you for a fact that Windows Server 2012 / 2012 R2 (server versions of Windows 8/8.1) are less efficient than prior versions. It takes me more clicks to log out when I'm done, more clicks to start applications, etc. If Windows 8/8.1 were measured by the user interface alone, they are a clear step BACKWARDS. Not like going back to the days of DOS... that would be an exaggeration. But it begs the question, why did they go backwards at all??? Just so MS could force one UI down everyone's throat for phone/tablet/pc? That's some really poor logic.

How do things take extra clicks?
You hit the Windows key, type what you want, hit Enter and VOILA it's there!

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's bad or a step backward.

 

[ninjacore]

I'm just gonna go ahead and quote myself.

I honestly think most people who dislike W8 so much, probably didn't use it longer than a week.

I challenge you to use W8 for a month, then try and go back to 7. I have used both on a daily basis (7 at work, 8 at home) for a year plus and would much prefer to be using 8 in both locations.

EDIT:

It is way less efficient. That is the bottom line for me when it comes to an OS and the GUI. How many clicks does it take to accomplish something? When Microsoft implemented the start screen, they took a major step backwards.

Even if it did take one more click (which, it doesn't, as ATM pointed out), how is that "way less efficient"? You're getting hung up on these tiny GUI differences and trying to make them some larger "problem".

EDIT2:
Full disclosure, when W8 first launched I did the Public Preview and hated it for all its visual differences. I was always on your side of this discussion until I heard that later DirectX releases would only support W8 at which point I finally gave in and converted over to W8 on my desktop (read: used it for longer than a week). Within a very short amount of time, I was whistling a different tune entirely.

 

[doublejack]

If you are seriously rating the operating system by the number of clicks it takes you to do updates or log out, I'm not really sure how to respond to that. Updates in 7 and 8 take zero clicks to get to if you have it set to automatic.

Updates must be tested for the possible introduction of bugs prior to installing them. This is particularly important on mission critical servers, and when someone works for an IT service provider, as I do, you don't enable auto updates on ANY servers or workstations. Patching is already one of the biggest headaches in managing a Windows environment, and that's with protective measures already in place.

Even it did take one more click (which, it doesn't, as ATM pointed out), how is that "way less efficient"? You're getting hung up on these tiny GUI differences and trying to make them some larger "problem".

I'm logging in and out of various servers literally all day. What may seem like "tiny GUI differences" to you directly translates to more clicks for me, and that means it slows me down and makes more work for me. It's a matter of perspective. If I only used Windows 8/8.1 at home I probably wouldn't care, either.

A click is like a dollar. One on its own doesn't mean much. Add up 50 of them, though, and you can do something... like a date night at the movies.

Microsoft seems to think it is OK to make me and other engineers / admins click more to do our jobs. Why should I be ok with that?

BTW, it in fact DOES take an additional click to run windows update in 8/8.1 versus Windows 7. The link I posted has the proof. Go ahead and read it.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

Updates must be tested for the possible introduction of bugs prior to installing them. This is particularly important on mission critical servers, and when someone works for an IT service provider, as I do, you don't enable auto updates on ANY servers or workstations. Patching is already one of the biggest headaches in managing a Windows environment, and that's with protective measures already in place.



I'm logging in and out of various servers literally all day. What may seem like "tiny GUI differences" to you directly translates to more clicks for me, and that means it slows me down and makes more work for me. It's a matter of perspective. If I only used Windows 8/8.1 at home I probably wouldn't care, either.

A click is like a dollar. One on its own doesn't mean much. Add up 50 of them, though, and you can do something... like a date night at the movies.

Microsoft seems to think it is OK to make me and other engineers / admins click more to do our jobs. Why should I be ok with that?

BTW, it in fact DOES take an additional click to run windows update in 8/8.1 versus Windows 7. The link I posted has the proof. Go ahead and read it.

A click is like a dollar.... so the faster boot time must be like ten dollars.

Again, you don't HAVE to click to get to the updates.

Who cares if it takes an extra click to do if you can do it WITHOUT CLICKING.

 

[wagex]

everything in windows 8 is less clicks than people make it out to be. like omg im on the start screen, i need to go to windows updates..... start typing windows updates hit enter and boom theres the winderps upderps.

 

[ninjacore]

[a hearty amen]

 

[Automata]

Updates must be tested for the possible introduction of bugs prior to installing them. This is particularly important on mission critical servers, and when someone works for an IT service provider, as I do, you don't enable auto updates on ANY servers or workstations. Patching is already one of the biggest headaches in managing a Windows environment, and that's with protective measures already in place.

WSUS isn't in use? That would solve the checking for updates issue handily. You point the update server setting to your WSUS and approve/deny updates there. I've used this type of setup and it is incredibly simple. You don't even need to configure each station, as you'd specify the configuration in the domain.

 

[c627627]

I challenge you to use W8 for a month, then try and go back to 7.

I used Windows 8 Metro user interface without Classic Shell for a month upon its release. It's really great that you enjoy it. However, the majority of people (more than 50%), for whatever reason, do not. Microsoft is now officially getting rid of Charms, in a testament to its failure... Charms had appropriated a part of our work space and it was particularly intrusive in a deadline-chasing crunch when it was popping up, obstructing the view of work.

Original Windows 8 release also made us literally jump through Circus Hoops just to Reboot or Shut Down our PC's. It would be an understatement to say that this was inefficient, some would say mental to decide to make Reboot and Shut Down that difficult for Personal Computers. In any case, with or without them fixing that, none of us would be having this conversation and "nobody" would be using Windows 7 if only Microsoft gave people an option, just an option, Classic Shell gives us so that we can choose what we like, or better yet, use BOTH just as Classic Shell allows us to do.

I am inside Metro with a single click and inside Windows 7-looking Windows 8 again just by pressing Escape.


Why did anyone decided that it would be a good idea to TAKE AWAY options for us to choose what we like? That was the reason for this ongoing problem, them taking away our personal choice, rather than comparing Metro vs. Windows 7 interface.

 

[ninjacore]

everything in windows 8 is less clicks than people make it out to be. like omg im on the start screen, i need to go to windows updates..... start typing windows updates hit enter and boom theres the winderps upderps.

WSUS isn't in use? That would solve the checking for updates issue handily. You point the update server setting to your WSUS and approve/deny updates there. I've used this type of setup and it is incredibly simple. You don't even need to configure each station, as you'd specify the configuration in the domain.

How much money are we gonna save this guy's company today?

 

[doublejack]

everything in windows 8 is less clicks than people make it out to be. like omg im on the start screen, i need to go to windows updates..... start typing windows updates hit enter and boom theres the winderps upderps.

Yes, winderps upderps indeed.

What if you're on the desktop and not the start screen? You must select settings, when the search defaults to apps only. Extra click vs. Win7. Why in the world are the apps and "setting" items separate anyway? I'm sure MS has some convoluted logic that explains...

Does it occur to anyone that maybe, just maybe, the reason why so many people make Windows 8 out to be inefficient because *gasp* it is?

 

[ninjacore]

What if you're on the desktop and not the start screen? You must select settings, when the search defaults to apps only. Extra click vs. Win7. Why in the world are the apps and "setting" items separate anyway? I'm sure MS has some convoluted logic that explains...

The Windows key on your keyboard brings up the start screen (or start menu if you're in W7). Then, regardless of OS, you start typing what you want ("windows update"). Hit Enter when what you want is selected...

Does it occur to anyone that maybe, just maybe, the reason why so many people make Windows 8 out to be inefficient because *gasp* it is?

You're running out of bullets in your inefficiency gun. I browsed through the article you linked. It's as useless as this conversation. Besides this Windows Update click argument, on which you aren't swaying anyone, what other "inefficiencies" are there? Is anything slower? Boot times? App load times?

I've already linked an article with data showing that games are faster in W8...

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...ows_7_vs_81_performance_review/1#.U_uR0PldW4I